Government Food Safety Requires a Proactive Stance
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 15, 2014
Executive Summary: To solve Taiwan's food safety problems, one must leave behind
crisis management and political calculation. The food industry must
become proactive. The National Security Council must not be reduced to a
talk show. The President must not try to be a talk show host. Wei Chuan
must understand crisis management. The Presidential Office must
understand proactive strategy.
Full Text Below:
The Wei Chuan Corporation contracted out three times a year. This of course is not something that can simply be explained away as "poor management." Its actions have sparked outrage on Taiwan. Many people, including celebrities, journalists, government officials, and NGOs are boycotting the company's products. This newspaper recently criticized Wei Chuan in its editorials. We think the domestic food industry lacks social responsibility. Its indifference to Taiwan has ignited a firestorm, and it has only itself to blame. Following the Wei Chuan food safety scandal, President Ma Ying-jeou convened a National Security Council meeting. The council called for an "all peoples boycott of Wei Chuan" that left onlookers dumbfounded. Its action can be viewed from three angles. We hope an alternative to this populist and demagogic "all peoples open season on Wei Chuan" can be found.
First of all, the boycott of Wei Chuan-related businesses by the general public and talking heads is a perfectly natural social phenomenon. But it is inappropriate for the president, as the leader of the nation, as a patriarch to all the people, to goad 99% of the public to boycott 1% of the public who operated unethical businesses. Wei Chuan's crimes have legal recourse and administrative penalties. These are reasonable means the government can adopt that are consistent with the rule of law. In any case, the corporate staff, from the boss on down, are still people of Taiwan. The President of the Republic of China represents all of the people on Taiwan. He must "see the people as if they were his children." The educational world has a slogan: "No child left behind." Even gang members and junkies are not excluded. The Head of State represents everyone in the country. He cannot treat some people as if they were "The Others." That is the proper attitude for a patriarch.
Secondly, the National Security Council made a great show of discussing food safety. Its conclusion was a myopic "all peoples' boycott." It merely highlighted the Ma administration's myopia about national security. Taiwan's food safety may be poor. But at least it is better than food safety management on the Mainland. Mainlanders take advantage of this when they travel to other regions. When they visit Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, or other locales, they stock up on milk powder and other goods. As we can see, 1.4 billion people have doubts about food safety on the Mainland. Information about food safety on Taiwan is readily available. We could well become a successful repackager, certifier, recorder, and quality control center for many consumer products sold to 1.4 billion Chinese.
Over the past two years, three food safety crises have erupted. The government on Taiwan has an opportunity to turn a crisis into an opportunity. It has an opportunity to certify and provide information about key food products, including milk powder, cooking oil, and banned ingredients. It has an opportunity to estabish Taiwan as a leading certifier of product quality in the Chinese food market. Those in office must be proactive about the food industry. Otherwise they will be reduced to passively coping with food safety incidents again and again. Such an approach lacks vision. It also leaves one running on a treadmill, as a perpetual victim of changeable public opinion. The recent National Security Council call for an "all peoples boycott of Wei Chuan" is a case in point.
Finally, we must say a few words about Wei Chuan. The Wei brothers were able to establish themselves on the Mainland over the past 30 years. This means they possess the extraordinary ability to manage costs and develop markets. But this sort of money sensitive business ability that chases after low overhead costs, is also what got the company into its current crisis. The Wei brothers may resign their chairmanships. They may shed tears. But neither will them the forgiveness of the Taiwan public. Only practical action, sincerity, and a determination to contribute to Taiwan society can do the trick. The Wei family could donate a third or even half of its family assets to establish a Food Safety Fund on Taiwan. It could appoint persons to manage it in the name of social justice. It could help Taiwan build the world's best food safety testing, certification, company database, raw material control, quality certification, and cloud database. That would help ameliorate their transgressions. That would help society get past the incident and make new breakthroughs. Wherever one falls, one must get up. The illicit profits made by selling tainted foodstuffs should be used to establish a "Food Safety Cloud." That may be the only way to win back the hearts and minds of the Taiwan public.
In short, to solve Taiwan's food safety problems, one must leave behind crisis management and political calculation. The food industry must become proactive. The National Security Council must not be reduced to a talk show. The President must not try to be a talk show host. Wei Chuan must understand crisis management. The Presidential Office must understand proactive strategy.
政府處理食安 要有正面思考與布局
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.15 02:04 am
頂新食品一年三次出包，當然絕對不是簡單一句「管理不善」所能諉飾，也激起了台灣人民的公憤，更有許多民眾、媒體、名人和機關團體發起抵制。本報社論近日也對頂新事件多所批評，認為業者欠缺社會責任，更輕忽對台灣這塊土地的珍惜與關懷，如今引發企業風暴如燎原之火，確實是咎由自取。然而在頂新食安危機後，馬英九總統日前召開國安會議，竟然得出一個「全民抵制頂新」的結論，令外界瞠目結舌。對於此事，我們可從三個角度切入分析，希望能在這一片「全民皆曰頂新可殺」的民粹風氣中，找到一個理想的解決方案。
首先，對於頂新與味全相關事業，民間的抵制與名嘴的批評都是社會情緒的自然呈現；但是總統作為國家的領導人、全民的大家長，卻不適合呼籲九十九％的多數人民去抵制一％表現不佳的少數不良企業。頂新的過錯，可以有司法追訴、有行政裁罰，這些都是政府合理的法治手段；但是無論如何，該企業上自老闆下至員工終究還是台灣人民。中華民國總統對於所有的台灣人民，還是要有「視民如子」的胸襟與高度。教育的標準口號是「不放棄任何一個孩子」（no child left behind），即使是混幫派、吸毒品的也不例外；國家元首對於全國人民，當然也不可以把他們打為異類。這是身為大家長的應有高度。
其次，國安會大陣仗討論食安，卻得出「全民抵制」這麼一個欠缺格局視野的結論，也凸顯出馬政府國安思考之狹窄。老實說，台灣的食安再怎麼差，也比中國大陸的食品管理要好上許多。大陸人民趁出國旅遊之便，必定會在港、澳、台等地搜刮採購奶粉等食品，即可驗證十四億人民對食品信心之所繫。以台灣資通訊之實力與食品履歷發展之經驗，我們是極有可能成功發展成為十四億華人若干產品的分裝、驗證、履歷、品質檢驗中心的。
過去兩年三次的食安事件雖然都是負面衝擊，但是台灣政府大有機會將危機轉化為轉機，趁此機會逐步建立起台灣對若干關鍵食品（例如奶粉、食用油、禁止原料之負面索引）的驗證資通訊系統，建構起台灣在華人食品市場的龍頭認證地位。執政者如果不能從正面積極的「食品產業」思考切入，就只能一次又一次淪為食安事件負面消極的危機處理，不但自貶格局，也自陷於沒完沒了、永遠被輿論追殺的困境。日前國安會「全民抵制頂新」的天兵級結論，正是這種困境的寫照。
最後，我們也要對頂新集團說幾句話。魏家兄弟能在卅年間在中國大陸打下一片天地，這表示他們在成本管理、市場開拓方面有過人的能耐。但是，這種對「錢」敏感的企業經營能力，為了追逐低成本而極盡手段的方式，卻也正是種下該集團目前身陷危機的原因。魏家兄弟現在不論是辭董座、掉眼淚，都不足以換回台灣人民的寬宥。唯一一條可行之路，就是用心、用力地回饋台灣社會。魏家如果能裸捐三分之一甚至二分之一的家族財產，在台灣成立食品安全基金，完全委請社會公正人士去管理運用，主動積極協助台灣建置全世界最理想的食品安全檢測、認證履歷、原料管控、品質認定、雲端資料等流程，果能如此，那就不但是幫助自己補過修愆，也是幫助整個台灣社會往正面超越突破。從哪裡跌倒，就從那裡站起來；不名譽賺來的黑心食品錢全數捐出來建置「食安雲」，這可能是尋得台灣人民「給最後一次機會」的唯一辦法。
總之，台灣的食安問題要解決，就一定要從危機處理、選舉算計的負面泥淖中跳出來，往食品產業的正面方向思考、規劃。國家安全會議不該是叩應節目，總統更不該淪為名嘴；頂新要懂得負面危機處理，總統府更該懂得正面戰略布局。
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Japan's Snow Brand Provides a Precedent for Taiwan's Food Safety
Japan's Snow Brand Provides a Precedent for Taiwan's Food Safety
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 14, 2014
Executive Summary: President Ma has vowed not to allow blackhearted merchants to get away with their crimes. But people can detect no real determination on the part of the government. The government should take Japan's experience as a warning. It should strike while the iron is hot. It should totally revamp the Republic of China's food safety mechanisms, allowing Taiwan to enter a genuine "food safety" era.
Full Text Below:
Food is a human being's first requirement. Food safety reflects a nation's level of civilization. It is also the basis of trust between the government and the people. Recently blackhearted merchants foisted rancid cooking oil on the Taiwan public. Many upstream cooking oil plants closed down overnight. Downstream food manufacturers were also affected. The scandal undermined Taiwan's image as a Mecca for gourmets. Food safety depends on strict enforcement and effective management, as well as morality and self-discipline.
Wave upon wave of food safety crises have erupted in recent years. They have revealed government dereliction in food safety. The division of responsibilities between the central and local government remains unclear, The laws have failed to keep up with the times and with technological progress. Under the circumstances, government oversight is confined to food stores. It does not apply to manufacturing plants or raw materials. Clearly Taiwan is still at the stage of "food hygiene" and has yet to enter the era of "food safety."
Many old line cooking oil companies were involved in the scandal. Clearly industry self-regulation resulted in giant loopholes. The industry acted as both player and referee in food safety. It reduced the GMP system to pro forma ritual. Many unscrupulous vendors made illicit profits by forging quality labels. The government failed in its role as gatekeeper.
Japan's experience in this respect is highly illuminating. Japan has long been extremely strict about food safety, In 1990 Japan experienced an entire series of food safety scandals. Japan endured a series of painful ordeals. For example: The Hokkaido Meat Hope Company was suspected of adding cheaper beef and pork into its products. They were packaged as a high quality beef and sold at a profit. Expired Hokkaido "White Lovers" brand chocolate was repackaged and sold to consumers. The upscale Japanese restaurant Senba Good Omen, recycled leftover food by repackaging it and selling it as fresh. As we can see, unscrupulous merchants are the same everywhere.
The factor that ultimately forced the Japanese government to amend its Food Sanitation Law was the Snow Brand Milk poisoning outbreak. Snow Brand Milk is a famous company, with milk plants located in Hokkaido. In late March of that year, a power blackout lasted three hours. Power was restored and production resumed. But the factory failed to discard raw milk infected with Staphylococcus during the power outage. Instead the milk was turned into low-fat milk products and sold. As many as 15,000 people in the Kansai region were poisoned. This was Japan's more serious case of food poisoning since WWII. The Snow Brand Company, with its 75 year history, became the target of a public boycott, and was forced to declare bankruptcy.
This event motivated the Japanese government to scrap the outdated Food Sanitation Law and author the Food Safety Basic Law. Japan officially entered the "food safety" era. The Food Safety Basic Law emphasizes oversight over the entire process, from the field to the table. It is preventative, transparent, and adaptable in nature.
One. It is preventative. It raised the status of government agencies in charge of food safety. Former departments were promoted to the level of cabinet offices. Cabinet Offices are equivalent to the Republic of China's Yuans. They were established under the Food Safety Commission, which consists of seven independent members. They include the Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Affairs. The Bureau of Affairs includes a Safety Assessment Division, a Message Announcement Division, and an Emergency Response Division. The seven members exercise independent powers. Their primary responsibility is food safety risk assessment and the prevention of food safety crises.
Two. Take the matter of transparency. Horizontal linkages between relevant ministries have been increased. Among the various ministries in Japan, the MHLW and Ministry of Agriculture are food safety-related. The MHLW is responsible for safety inspections of food additives. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the safety of agricultural and aquatic products. The Food Safety Basic Law expressly stipulates that these two ministries must communicate with each other and promote interagency cooperation. Their main responsibilities are the management of food safety risks and the provision of information.
Three. Take the matter of adaptability. The Food Safety Basic Law is not static. Since its inception in 2003, it has been amended 15 times. For example, In 2008, the The Senba Good Omen scandal erupted. The restaurant served inferior quality, falsely labeled beef and leftover dishes to patrons. The law was amended to establish a food safety traceability system. Its purpose was to comprehensively and scientifically monitor the entire food processing chain. This would ensure the timely discovery of problems, the accurate identification of causes, the recall of problematic food, and the promotion of transparency in food safety. In other words, Japan's food safety laws changed with the times.
Japan's experience provides us with an example of comprehensive monitoring, from the field to the table, preventive measures, transparency of information, and laws that keep pace with the times. These measures curb blackhearted merchants and restore public confidence in food safety.
President Ma has vowed not to allow blackhearted merchants to get away with their crimes. But people can detect no real determination on the part of the government. The government should take Japan's experience as a warning. It should strike while the iron is hot. It should totally revamp the Republic of China's food safety mechanisms, allowing Taiwan to enter a genuine "food safety" era.
日本的雪印，台灣的頂新
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.14 02:07 am
民以食為天，食品安全是一個國家文明程度的體現，也是政府與人民之間信賴的基礎。但近期台灣爆發連串的黑心油事件，不僅許多上游油廠一夕崩毀，也讓下游食品業慘遭株連，同時重創了台灣小吃王國的形象。食品安全除了依賴政府的嚴格執法及有效管理之外，必須仰賴企業的道德自律，別無良方。
從近年一波波食安危機看，我們發現政府不僅對於食品安全的把關不嚴，中央與地方政府的監督權責分工不清，同時相關法令也無法隨著科技進步而與時俱進。在這種情況下，政府對於食品的監督仍只侷限於賣場，而無法早一步進到工廠，甚至將觸角伸向原料。可見，台灣仍然停留在「食品衛生」的階段，尚未進步到「食品安全」的時代。
從許多老牌企業捲入假油事件，可以發現，藉由業者「自律管理」的方式其實存在很大的漏洞；企業「選手兼裁判」主導食品安全，使ＧＭＰ制度淪為形式。許多不肖廠商為了賺取暴利，甚至竄改或偽造合格標籤，混淆消費者的耳目。由此，可見政府公權力已失去積極監督作用。
要檢討此一缺失，日本的例子或可供借鏡。日本向以對食品安全把關嚴格著稱，事實上，一九九○年前後日本也曾爆發連串的食安醜聞，歷經一次次陣痛。例如：北海道的Meat Hope公司涉嫌將廉價豬肉混進牛肉之中加工，偽裝成高級和牛販售圖利；北海道的巧克力品牌白色戀人則竄改包裝上的賞味期限，把過期的巧克力賣給消費者；高級的日本料理店船場吉兆，則將顧客吃剩的菜回收再包裝販售。由此可見，商人無良，舉世皆同。
而真正促成日本政府決心修改「食品衛生法」的，是二○○○年爆發的雪印牛乳中毒事件。此一事件的起因，是著名的雪印公司位於北海道的牛乳工廠，那年三月底因故停電三小時，但在復電後重新啟動生產線時，廠方卻未當即把停電期間感染葡萄球菌的生乳廢棄，反而將之製造成低脂牛乳販售。結果，關西地區有一萬五千人因此中毒，成為日本戰後最大規模的食物中毒事件。有七十五年歷史的雪印公司，也在民眾的集體抵制下，宣告破產。
這個事件，讓日本政府決定廢棄過時的「食品衛生法」，重新訂定「食品安全基本法」，使日本正式邁入「食品安全」時代。在「食品安全基本法」中，強調對食品從「產地」到「餐桌」全過程的監督，具有預防性、透明性及適應性等三項特性：
首先，在預防性方面：大幅提升政府監管食品安全的位階，從原先的部會提高至內閣府。在「內閣府」（相當於我國的行政院）之下設立「食品安全委員會」，由七名獨立委員組成，下設調查局及事務局，事務局下並設有安全評估科、訊息公告科及緊急應對科。七名委員獨立行使職權，其主要職責在於食品安全的風險評估，及預防食品危機的發生。
其次，在透明性方面：強化相關部會的橫向聯繫，在日本各部會當中，與食品安全有相關的便是「厚生勞動省」及「農林水產省」，厚生勞動省負責食品添加物的安全稽查，農林水產省負責稽查農產品及水產品的安全。「食安基本法」明訂，這兩個部會訊息要相互流通，並支援的跨部會合作，其主要職責在食安的風險管理並提供透明化的訊息。
第三，在適應性方面：這部「食安基本法」並非一成不變，從二○○三年制定後，總計修正達十五次之多。例如，二○○八年爆發「船場吉兆」餐廳以偽牛肉及上過桌的菜餚奉客的醜聞後，便修法成立「食品安全追溯制度」，目的在於全面而科學地監控食品移動的全過程，不僅要確保在事故發生時能迅速而準確地查明原因，追回問題食品，還要促進監管措施的透明化。亦即，日本的食品安全法令是與時俱進。
從日本的經驗，我們可以發現，從產地到餐桌的全面監控、預防性及透明化的訊息、和法令的與時俱進，是遏制黑心廠商造假並重拾民眾食安信心的三大利器。
馬總統信誓旦旦說不會放過任何黑心廠商，但是，人們似乎還沒看到政府真正的決心。政府何不以日本為鑑，在民氣可用的情況下，全面重建我國的食品安全機制，讓台灣邁向真正的「食品安全」時代。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 14, 2014
Executive Summary: President Ma has vowed not to allow blackhearted merchants to get away with their crimes. But people can detect no real determination on the part of the government. The government should take Japan's experience as a warning. It should strike while the iron is hot. It should totally revamp the Republic of China's food safety mechanisms, allowing Taiwan to enter a genuine "food safety" era.
Full Text Below:
Food is a human being's first requirement. Food safety reflects a nation's level of civilization. It is also the basis of trust between the government and the people. Recently blackhearted merchants foisted rancid cooking oil on the Taiwan public. Many upstream cooking oil plants closed down overnight. Downstream food manufacturers were also affected. The scandal undermined Taiwan's image as a Mecca for gourmets. Food safety depends on strict enforcement and effective management, as well as morality and self-discipline.
Wave upon wave of food safety crises have erupted in recent years. They have revealed government dereliction in food safety. The division of responsibilities between the central and local government remains unclear, The laws have failed to keep up with the times and with technological progress. Under the circumstances, government oversight is confined to food stores. It does not apply to manufacturing plants or raw materials. Clearly Taiwan is still at the stage of "food hygiene" and has yet to enter the era of "food safety."
Many old line cooking oil companies were involved in the scandal. Clearly industry self-regulation resulted in giant loopholes. The industry acted as both player and referee in food safety. It reduced the GMP system to pro forma ritual. Many unscrupulous vendors made illicit profits by forging quality labels. The government failed in its role as gatekeeper.
Japan's experience in this respect is highly illuminating. Japan has long been extremely strict about food safety, In 1990 Japan experienced an entire series of food safety scandals. Japan endured a series of painful ordeals. For example: The Hokkaido Meat Hope Company was suspected of adding cheaper beef and pork into its products. They were packaged as a high quality beef and sold at a profit. Expired Hokkaido "White Lovers" brand chocolate was repackaged and sold to consumers. The upscale Japanese restaurant Senba Good Omen, recycled leftover food by repackaging it and selling it as fresh. As we can see, unscrupulous merchants are the same everywhere.
The factor that ultimately forced the Japanese government to amend its Food Sanitation Law was the Snow Brand Milk poisoning outbreak. Snow Brand Milk is a famous company, with milk plants located in Hokkaido. In late March of that year, a power blackout lasted three hours. Power was restored and production resumed. But the factory failed to discard raw milk infected with Staphylococcus during the power outage. Instead the milk was turned into low-fat milk products and sold. As many as 15,000 people in the Kansai region were poisoned. This was Japan's more serious case of food poisoning since WWII. The Snow Brand Company, with its 75 year history, became the target of a public boycott, and was forced to declare bankruptcy.
This event motivated the Japanese government to scrap the outdated Food Sanitation Law and author the Food Safety Basic Law. Japan officially entered the "food safety" era. The Food Safety Basic Law emphasizes oversight over the entire process, from the field to the table. It is preventative, transparent, and adaptable in nature.
One. It is preventative. It raised the status of government agencies in charge of food safety. Former departments were promoted to the level of cabinet offices. Cabinet Offices are equivalent to the Republic of China's Yuans. They were established under the Food Safety Commission, which consists of seven independent members. They include the Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Affairs. The Bureau of Affairs includes a Safety Assessment Division, a Message Announcement Division, and an Emergency Response Division. The seven members exercise independent powers. Their primary responsibility is food safety risk assessment and the prevention of food safety crises.
Two. Take the matter of transparency. Horizontal linkages between relevant ministries have been increased. Among the various ministries in Japan, the MHLW and Ministry of Agriculture are food safety-related. The MHLW is responsible for safety inspections of food additives. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the safety of agricultural and aquatic products. The Food Safety Basic Law expressly stipulates that these two ministries must communicate with each other and promote interagency cooperation. Their main responsibilities are the management of food safety risks and the provision of information.
Three. Take the matter of adaptability. The Food Safety Basic Law is not static. Since its inception in 2003, it has been amended 15 times. For example, In 2008, the The Senba Good Omen scandal erupted. The restaurant served inferior quality, falsely labeled beef and leftover dishes to patrons. The law was amended to establish a food safety traceability system. Its purpose was to comprehensively and scientifically monitor the entire food processing chain. This would ensure the timely discovery of problems, the accurate identification of causes, the recall of problematic food, and the promotion of transparency in food safety. In other words, Japan's food safety laws changed with the times.
Japan's experience provides us with an example of comprehensive monitoring, from the field to the table, preventive measures, transparency of information, and laws that keep pace with the times. These measures curb blackhearted merchants and restore public confidence in food safety.
President Ma has vowed not to allow blackhearted merchants to get away with their crimes. But people can detect no real determination on the part of the government. The government should take Japan's experience as a warning. It should strike while the iron is hot. It should totally revamp the Republic of China's food safety mechanisms, allowing Taiwan to enter a genuine "food safety" era.
日本的雪印，台灣的頂新
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.14 02:07 am
民以食為天，食品安全是一個國家文明程度的體現，也是政府與人民之間信賴的基礎。但近期台灣爆發連串的黑心油事件，不僅許多上游油廠一夕崩毀，也讓下游食品業慘遭株連，同時重創了台灣小吃王國的形象。食品安全除了依賴政府的嚴格執法及有效管理之外，必須仰賴企業的道德自律，別無良方。
從近年一波波食安危機看，我們發現政府不僅對於食品安全的把關不嚴，中央與地方政府的監督權責分工不清，同時相關法令也無法隨著科技進步而與時俱進。在這種情況下，政府對於食品的監督仍只侷限於賣場，而無法早一步進到工廠，甚至將觸角伸向原料。可見，台灣仍然停留在「食品衛生」的階段，尚未進步到「食品安全」的時代。
從許多老牌企業捲入假油事件，可以發現，藉由業者「自律管理」的方式其實存在很大的漏洞；企業「選手兼裁判」主導食品安全，使ＧＭＰ制度淪為形式。許多不肖廠商為了賺取暴利，甚至竄改或偽造合格標籤，混淆消費者的耳目。由此，可見政府公權力已失去積極監督作用。
要檢討此一缺失，日本的例子或可供借鏡。日本向以對食品安全把關嚴格著稱，事實上，一九九○年前後日本也曾爆發連串的食安醜聞，歷經一次次陣痛。例如：北海道的Meat Hope公司涉嫌將廉價豬肉混進牛肉之中加工，偽裝成高級和牛販售圖利；北海道的巧克力品牌白色戀人則竄改包裝上的賞味期限，把過期的巧克力賣給消費者；高級的日本料理店船場吉兆，則將顧客吃剩的菜回收再包裝販售。由此可見，商人無良，舉世皆同。
而真正促成日本政府決心修改「食品衛生法」的，是二○○○年爆發的雪印牛乳中毒事件。此一事件的起因，是著名的雪印公司位於北海道的牛乳工廠，那年三月底因故停電三小時，但在復電後重新啟動生產線時，廠方卻未當即把停電期間感染葡萄球菌的生乳廢棄，反而將之製造成低脂牛乳販售。結果，關西地區有一萬五千人因此中毒，成為日本戰後最大規模的食物中毒事件。有七十五年歷史的雪印公司，也在民眾的集體抵制下，宣告破產。
這個事件，讓日本政府決定廢棄過時的「食品衛生法」，重新訂定「食品安全基本法」，使日本正式邁入「食品安全」時代。在「食品安全基本法」中，強調對食品從「產地」到「餐桌」全過程的監督，具有預防性、透明性及適應性等三項特性：
首先，在預防性方面：大幅提升政府監管食品安全的位階，從原先的部會提高至內閣府。在「內閣府」（相當於我國的行政院）之下設立「食品安全委員會」，由七名獨立委員組成，下設調查局及事務局，事務局下並設有安全評估科、訊息公告科及緊急應對科。七名委員獨立行使職權，其主要職責在於食品安全的風險評估，及預防食品危機的發生。
其次，在透明性方面：強化相關部會的橫向聯繫，在日本各部會當中，與食品安全有相關的便是「厚生勞動省」及「農林水產省」，厚生勞動省負責食品添加物的安全稽查，農林水產省負責稽查農產品及水產品的安全。「食安基本法」明訂，這兩個部會訊息要相互流通，並支援的跨部會合作，其主要職責在食安的風險管理並提供透明化的訊息。
第三，在適應性方面：這部「食安基本法」並非一成不變，從二○○三年制定後，總計修正達十五次之多。例如，二○○八年爆發「船場吉兆」餐廳以偽牛肉及上過桌的菜餚奉客的醜聞後，便修法成立「食品安全追溯制度」，目的在於全面而科學地監控食品移動的全過程，不僅要確保在事故發生時能迅速而準確地查明原因，追回問題食品，還要促進監管措施的透明化。亦即，日本的食品安全法令是與時俱進。
從日本的經驗，我們可以發現，從產地到餐桌的全面監控、預防性及透明化的訊息、和法令的與時俱進，是遏制黑心廠商造假並重拾民眾食安信心的三大利器。
馬總統信誓旦旦說不會放過任何黑心廠商，但是，人們似乎還沒看到政府真正的決心。政府何不以日本為鑑，在民氣可用的情況下，全面重建我國的食品安全機制，讓台灣邁向真正的「食品安全」時代。
Sunday, October 12, 2014
The Next Minister of Health and Welfare Will Also Have to Step Down
The Next Minister of Health and Welfare Will Also Have to Step Down
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 13, 2014
Executive Summary: Food safety scandals have harmed Taiwan's economic development, making food safety a national security issue. Following wave upon wave of food safety crises, the Executive Yuan should have learned its lesson. It must establish an inter-ministerial oversight system. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must shoulder responsibility. He can no longer merely issue vague suggestions. He must strengthen food safety inspection mechanisms. He must not pass the buck for first line inspections onto local health authorities. He must have the courage to oversee upstream food manufacturers. Otherwise food safety crises will never end. And the Minister of Health and Welfare's rice bowl will no longer be assured.
Full Text Below:
The Executive Yuan is actively seeking a new Minister of Health and Welfare. We can confidently predict that unless the government makes structural reforms to food safety management, whoever assumes the post will soon be forced to step down. We are confident because former Minister of Health and Welfare Wen-Ta Chiu, in a parting shot, predicted that another food safety crisis would erupt in short order. Sure enough, the new ministerial candidates have yet to be determined, but another, even more serious incident has occurred, in which feed oil was mixed with edible oil, once again undermining Taiwan's reputation as a Mecca for gourmets.
Food Safety crises are fated to occur repeatedly, because government heads do not understand what they must do to ensure food safety. The food safety crises are the result of unscrupulous merchants trying to make a dishonest buck. The government has failed its role as watchdog. For this it cannot evade responsibility. Before Wen-Ta Chiu accepted the post, he complained about the media's coverage of food safety incidents. He argued that central government agencies were merely responsible for promoting policy and studying and amending laws and regulations. He considered health inspections a local government responsibility. Chiu's thinking represented the Ministry of Health and Welfare's long held misconceptions. This sort of thinking was the reason five days after Chiu stepped down an even more serious food safety crisis erupted.
The bottom line is that Taiwan is small in area, and its food industry network is closely knit. Food production chain coopetition and the division of labor are closely related. If an upstream food company's product is contaminate, the impact affects everyone downstream. Food science and technology are constantly evolving. The relationship between the two is close. New technologies and products are rapidly introduced into the production chain. Meanwhile government regulations, inspection standards, and inspection methods have failed to keep up with the times. As a result food safety crises can erupt at any time, The scale of these crises are increasing. Therefore the Executive Yuan cannot simply convene inter-ministerial meetings to address the problem after an outbreak has occurred. Rather it must establish a comprehensive, long term oversight and prevention mechanism.
The USA, Japan, Germany, and other advanced countries have also experienced rancid oil food safety incidents. After their painful lessons, they established new systems. For example, they require restaurants to report the volume of oil they take in and the volume of rancid oil they take out. U.S. regulations require all rancid oil to be collected and processed by government agencies. This prevents unscrupulous operators from recovering the oil, refining it, and reselling it as edible oil for a profit. Japan and the United States have adopted the same approach. They also require that the recycled oil have toxic castor oil added to it. That makes impossible for the recycling industry to resell the oil as edible oil. Instead, it is made into biodiesel.
The Health Department was the predecessor to the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Health Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs introduced the recycling of waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But sludge from the biodiesel blocked fuel lines, therefore the policy was terminated in May of this year. As a result, large volumes of waste oil entered the production chain, poisoning the public. The conversion of waste cooking oil into biodiesel was sound policy. A technical glitch led to its premature termination. That was a shame. The Executive Yuan will call for inter-ministerial coordination to solve the problem of sludge obstructing fuel lines. This is not a valid reason to discontinue a sound policy.
The Department of Health and Welfare must get to the root of the problem. It must rethink food safety oversight. It must exercise control over food at its source. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must alter his mindset. He must be bold. If food can be properly controlled at its source, downstream food manufacturers may violate food safety laws. But the damage will be limited and more readily controlled. It is less likely to affect Taiwan as a whole. The manufacturers of source ingredients is not the purview of local government authorities. The central government Ministry of Health and Welfare must assume responsibility. The Executive Yuan must establish an inter-ministerial mechanism. It must establish a downstream food chain oversight mechanism. Taiwan has too many tiny food stalls. Oversight mechanisms must work in combination with market mechanisms.
There are thousands of legal food additives. As long as there are profits to be made, people will willingly commit even hanging crimes. The slightest omission on the part of the government, and someone will find a legal loophole by which to make illicit profits. Large scale food manufacturers such as Chang Guann and Cheng Yi, must exercise closer oversight. The Ministry of Health and Welfare shoulder a heavy responsibility. Downstream food manufacturers are scattered all over the province. These will be overseen by county and city health bureaus.
Once Taiwan is admitted to the WTO, it must eliminate any hint of trade barriers. It must open itself to a steady stream of processed food imports. Many food plants process imported raw materials for redistribution. These sources can establish a border oversight system. This must be coordinated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and implemented by the responsible agencies. They must not pass the buck at every turn. They must transcend county and municipal level lines, in order to uncover violations.
The Food Safety and Health Administration Law has been amended six times in seven years. It should be one of the most stringent food regulations in the world. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is determined to punish violations of food safety. It is amending the law post haste, increasing fines tenfold.
But this is a piecemeal, stop-gap measure. Health inspectors have the resources to investigate scofflaws. They lack only criminal investigation authority. The new Minister of Health and Welfare can no longer cite the law as an excuse to do nothing.
Food safety scandals have harmed Taiwan's economic development, making food safety a national security issue. Following wave upon wave of food safety crises, the Executive Yuan should have learned its lesson. It must establish an inter-ministerial oversight system. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must shoulder responsibility. He can no longer merely issue vague suggestions. He must strengthen food safety inspection mechanisms. He must not pass the buck for first line inspections onto local health authorities. He must have the courage to oversee upstream food manufacturers. Otherwise food safety crises will never end. And the Minister of Health and Welfare's rice bowl will no longer be assured.
社論－誰當衛福部長都會很快垮台！
2014-10-13 01:36
中國時報
本報訊
行政院正積極尋覓新任衛福部長人選，我們可以斷言，除非政府就食安管理問題做出結構性改革，否則無論由誰接任，都會很快垮台。我們如此篤定，是因為前衛福部長邱文達的臨別贈言，已預言食安風暴即將再起。果然，新任部長人選尚未確定，又爆發了更嚴重的食用油混雜飼料用油事件，再度重創台灣美食王國聲譽。
食安風暴注定一再爆發，癥結原因在政府首長的食安管理責任認知錯誤，食安風暴固然是無良商人唯利是圖使然，政府未盡到把關之責更難辭其咎，而把關的責任在政府。邱文達下台前，曾對媒體的食安事件報導與評論發出不平之鳴，認為中央單位只負責政策推動、法規研修，稽查是地方政府衛生局職責。邱文達的思維，正是衛福部一貫的謬誤想法，就因這種偏差心態，邱下台才5天，馬上又爆出更嚴重的食安風暴。
追根究柢，台灣面積小、食品產業網絡綿密，生產線食物鏈的水平競合與垂直分工關係緊密又契合，只要一家上游食品大廠中鏢，傷害就如滾雪球般擴大。而食品科技日新月異，學產關係緊密，新技術、新產品迅速納入生產線，但政府的管理法規、檢驗標準與方法卻未能與時俱進，使食安風暴隨時可能爆發，而且震幅不斷擴大。因此，行政院不是只是在事件爆發後，召開跨部會會議就個案做出處置，而必須建立整體可長可久的稽核防範機制。
美國、日本及德國等先進國家都曾發生餿水油食安事件，經歷慘痛教訓後，都建立新制度，譬如嚴格規定餐廳向政府登記進油與餿水油量。美國規定回收的餿水油全部歸政府部門處理，以避免被不肖業者回收提煉，搖身一變為食用油牟利。日本與美國作法雷同，更要求回收油必須添加有毒性的蓖麻油，讓回收業者不敢精製回收油銷售，卻可以製成生質柴油。
台灣也曾經由衛生署（衛福部前身）、農委會與經濟部合作，推出回收廢食用油轉製生質柴油政策，卻因油泥阻塞油管問題，今年5月已喊「卡」，大量廢食用油因而流入食用油生產鏈，荼毒國民健康。廢食用油轉製生質柴油政策正確，卻因執行技術面出了問題就輕率喊停，殊為可惜。行政院應召開跨部會協調解決油泥阻塞問題，而不是讓好的政策隨意停頓。
衛福部必須正本清源，應就食品稽核工作重新分工，從食物源頭開始管控，新任衛福部長第一要務必須調整心態、勇於任事，如果源頭管控得宜，即使中下游食品廠商爆發食安違法情事，影響層面也可以局部控制，不致於全台遍地延燒。源頭大廠就不是地方政府所能有效稽查，必須由中央衛福部承擔責任。行政院則須啟動跨部會機制，建立食物鏈最下游管理機制，台灣小攤商太多，管理機制必須與市場機制結合。
國內合法食品添加物上千種，只要有暴利，殺頭生意都有人做，政府管理稍一疏漏，就會有人鑽法律漏洞大賺黑心錢。一定規模食品大廠的稽核工作，如強冠、正義等，應由衛福部扛起重責，分散全省各地中下游食品廠，交由各縣市衛生局列管稽核。
台灣加入WTO後，為避免貿易障礙的質疑，源源不斷開放加工食品輸入。許多食品廠也是進口原料再加工產製分銷，這些源頭可以建立國境管理制度，這必須由衛福部協調相關部會落實稽核，而不是動輒推諉，以跨縣市聯合稽查敷衍行事。
《食品安全衛生管理法》罰則7年來已修改6次，應是全世界最嚴厲的食品法規之一。衛福部為宣示重懲黑心食品決心，又快馬加鞭研擬修法提高罰金額度10倍，這終究是「頭痛醫頭，腳痛醫腳」，衛生單位稽查不法已有足夠的法源，只差沒被賦予刑事偵查權，新任衛福部長不能再以法規不夠嚴峻做為託詞。
食安已重創台灣經濟發展，形同國安問題，行政院歷經這幾波食安風暴，應痛定思痛，建立跨部會完整稽核體系。寄望新任衛福部長要有肩膀，絕不能再聽任部屬空泛建言，必須強化食安稽查管理機制，不要再把第一線稽查重責，全部推給地方衛生局，勇於扛起最上游食品大廠稽核權責，否則食安風暴永無止盡，衛福部長烏紗帽誰戴都不安穩！
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 13, 2014
Executive Summary: Food safety scandals have harmed Taiwan's economic development, making food safety a national security issue. Following wave upon wave of food safety crises, the Executive Yuan should have learned its lesson. It must establish an inter-ministerial oversight system. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must shoulder responsibility. He can no longer merely issue vague suggestions. He must strengthen food safety inspection mechanisms. He must not pass the buck for first line inspections onto local health authorities. He must have the courage to oversee upstream food manufacturers. Otherwise food safety crises will never end. And the Minister of Health and Welfare's rice bowl will no longer be assured.
Full Text Below:
The Executive Yuan is actively seeking a new Minister of Health and Welfare. We can confidently predict that unless the government makes structural reforms to food safety management, whoever assumes the post will soon be forced to step down. We are confident because former Minister of Health and Welfare Wen-Ta Chiu, in a parting shot, predicted that another food safety crisis would erupt in short order. Sure enough, the new ministerial candidates have yet to be determined, but another, even more serious incident has occurred, in which feed oil was mixed with edible oil, once again undermining Taiwan's reputation as a Mecca for gourmets.
Food Safety crises are fated to occur repeatedly, because government heads do not understand what they must do to ensure food safety. The food safety crises are the result of unscrupulous merchants trying to make a dishonest buck. The government has failed its role as watchdog. For this it cannot evade responsibility. Before Wen-Ta Chiu accepted the post, he complained about the media's coverage of food safety incidents. He argued that central government agencies were merely responsible for promoting policy and studying and amending laws and regulations. He considered health inspections a local government responsibility. Chiu's thinking represented the Ministry of Health and Welfare's long held misconceptions. This sort of thinking was the reason five days after Chiu stepped down an even more serious food safety crisis erupted.
The bottom line is that Taiwan is small in area, and its food industry network is closely knit. Food production chain coopetition and the division of labor are closely related. If an upstream food company's product is contaminate, the impact affects everyone downstream. Food science and technology are constantly evolving. The relationship between the two is close. New technologies and products are rapidly introduced into the production chain. Meanwhile government regulations, inspection standards, and inspection methods have failed to keep up with the times. As a result food safety crises can erupt at any time, The scale of these crises are increasing. Therefore the Executive Yuan cannot simply convene inter-ministerial meetings to address the problem after an outbreak has occurred. Rather it must establish a comprehensive, long term oversight and prevention mechanism.
The USA, Japan, Germany, and other advanced countries have also experienced rancid oil food safety incidents. After their painful lessons, they established new systems. For example, they require restaurants to report the volume of oil they take in and the volume of rancid oil they take out. U.S. regulations require all rancid oil to be collected and processed by government agencies. This prevents unscrupulous operators from recovering the oil, refining it, and reselling it as edible oil for a profit. Japan and the United States have adopted the same approach. They also require that the recycled oil have toxic castor oil added to it. That makes impossible for the recycling industry to resell the oil as edible oil. Instead, it is made into biodiesel.
The Health Department was the predecessor to the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Health Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs introduced the recycling of waste cooking oil into biodiesel. But sludge from the biodiesel blocked fuel lines, therefore the policy was terminated in May of this year. As a result, large volumes of waste oil entered the production chain, poisoning the public. The conversion of waste cooking oil into biodiesel was sound policy. A technical glitch led to its premature termination. That was a shame. The Executive Yuan will call for inter-ministerial coordination to solve the problem of sludge obstructing fuel lines. This is not a valid reason to discontinue a sound policy.
The Department of Health and Welfare must get to the root of the problem. It must rethink food safety oversight. It must exercise control over food at its source. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must alter his mindset. He must be bold. If food can be properly controlled at its source, downstream food manufacturers may violate food safety laws. But the damage will be limited and more readily controlled. It is less likely to affect Taiwan as a whole. The manufacturers of source ingredients is not the purview of local government authorities. The central government Ministry of Health and Welfare must assume responsibility. The Executive Yuan must establish an inter-ministerial mechanism. It must establish a downstream food chain oversight mechanism. Taiwan has too many tiny food stalls. Oversight mechanisms must work in combination with market mechanisms.
There are thousands of legal food additives. As long as there are profits to be made, people will willingly commit even hanging crimes. The slightest omission on the part of the government, and someone will find a legal loophole by which to make illicit profits. Large scale food manufacturers such as Chang Guann and Cheng Yi, must exercise closer oversight. The Ministry of Health and Welfare shoulder a heavy responsibility. Downstream food manufacturers are scattered all over the province. These will be overseen by county and city health bureaus.
Once Taiwan is admitted to the WTO, it must eliminate any hint of trade barriers. It must open itself to a steady stream of processed food imports. Many food plants process imported raw materials for redistribution. These sources can establish a border oversight system. This must be coordinated by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and implemented by the responsible agencies. They must not pass the buck at every turn. They must transcend county and municipal level lines, in order to uncover violations.
The Food Safety and Health Administration Law has been amended six times in seven years. It should be one of the most stringent food regulations in the world. The Ministry of Health and Welfare is determined to punish violations of food safety. It is amending the law post haste, increasing fines tenfold.
But this is a piecemeal, stop-gap measure. Health inspectors have the resources to investigate scofflaws. They lack only criminal investigation authority. The new Minister of Health and Welfare can no longer cite the law as an excuse to do nothing.
Food safety scandals have harmed Taiwan's economic development, making food safety a national security issue. Following wave upon wave of food safety crises, the Executive Yuan should have learned its lesson. It must establish an inter-ministerial oversight system. The new Minister of Health and Welfare must shoulder responsibility. He can no longer merely issue vague suggestions. He must strengthen food safety inspection mechanisms. He must not pass the buck for first line inspections onto local health authorities. He must have the courage to oversee upstream food manufacturers. Otherwise food safety crises will never end. And the Minister of Health and Welfare's rice bowl will no longer be assured.
社論－誰當衛福部長都會很快垮台！
2014-10-13 01:36
中國時報
本報訊
行政院正積極尋覓新任衛福部長人選，我們可以斷言，除非政府就食安管理問題做出結構性改革，否則無論由誰接任，都會很快垮台。我們如此篤定，是因為前衛福部長邱文達的臨別贈言，已預言食安風暴即將再起。果然，新任部長人選尚未確定，又爆發了更嚴重的食用油混雜飼料用油事件，再度重創台灣美食王國聲譽。
食安風暴注定一再爆發，癥結原因在政府首長的食安管理責任認知錯誤，食安風暴固然是無良商人唯利是圖使然，政府未盡到把關之責更難辭其咎，而把關的責任在政府。邱文達下台前，曾對媒體的食安事件報導與評論發出不平之鳴，認為中央單位只負責政策推動、法規研修，稽查是地方政府衛生局職責。邱文達的思維，正是衛福部一貫的謬誤想法，就因這種偏差心態，邱下台才5天，馬上又爆出更嚴重的食安風暴。
追根究柢，台灣面積小、食品產業網絡綿密，生產線食物鏈的水平競合與垂直分工關係緊密又契合，只要一家上游食品大廠中鏢，傷害就如滾雪球般擴大。而食品科技日新月異，學產關係緊密，新技術、新產品迅速納入生產線，但政府的管理法規、檢驗標準與方法卻未能與時俱進，使食安風暴隨時可能爆發，而且震幅不斷擴大。因此，行政院不是只是在事件爆發後，召開跨部會會議就個案做出處置，而必須建立整體可長可久的稽核防範機制。
美國、日本及德國等先進國家都曾發生餿水油食安事件，經歷慘痛教訓後，都建立新制度，譬如嚴格規定餐廳向政府登記進油與餿水油量。美國規定回收的餿水油全部歸政府部門處理，以避免被不肖業者回收提煉，搖身一變為食用油牟利。日本與美國作法雷同，更要求回收油必須添加有毒性的蓖麻油，讓回收業者不敢精製回收油銷售，卻可以製成生質柴油。
台灣也曾經由衛生署（衛福部前身）、農委會與經濟部合作，推出回收廢食用油轉製生質柴油政策，卻因油泥阻塞油管問題，今年5月已喊「卡」，大量廢食用油因而流入食用油生產鏈，荼毒國民健康。廢食用油轉製生質柴油政策正確，卻因執行技術面出了問題就輕率喊停，殊為可惜。行政院應召開跨部會協調解決油泥阻塞問題，而不是讓好的政策隨意停頓。
衛福部必須正本清源，應就食品稽核工作重新分工，從食物源頭開始管控，新任衛福部長第一要務必須調整心態、勇於任事，如果源頭管控得宜，即使中下游食品廠商爆發食安違法情事，影響層面也可以局部控制，不致於全台遍地延燒。源頭大廠就不是地方政府所能有效稽查，必須由中央衛福部承擔責任。行政院則須啟動跨部會機制，建立食物鏈最下游管理機制，台灣小攤商太多，管理機制必須與市場機制結合。
國內合法食品添加物上千種，只要有暴利，殺頭生意都有人做，政府管理稍一疏漏，就會有人鑽法律漏洞大賺黑心錢。一定規模食品大廠的稽核工作，如強冠、正義等，應由衛福部扛起重責，分散全省各地中下游食品廠，交由各縣市衛生局列管稽核。
台灣加入WTO後，為避免貿易障礙的質疑，源源不斷開放加工食品輸入。許多食品廠也是進口原料再加工產製分銷，這些源頭可以建立國境管理制度，這必須由衛福部協調相關部會落實稽核，而不是動輒推諉，以跨縣市聯合稽查敷衍行事。
《食品安全衛生管理法》罰則7年來已修改6次，應是全世界最嚴厲的食品法規之一。衛福部為宣示重懲黑心食品決心，又快馬加鞭研擬修法提高罰金額度10倍，這終究是「頭痛醫頭，腳痛醫腳」，衛生單位稽查不法已有足夠的法源，只差沒被賦予刑事偵查權，新任衛福部長不能再以法規不夠嚴峻做為託詞。
食安已重創台灣經濟發展，形同國安問題，行政院歷經這幾波食安風暴，應痛定思痛，建立跨部會完整稽核體系。寄望新任衛福部長要有肩膀，絕不能再聽任部屬空泛建言，必須強化食安稽查管理機制，不要再把第一線稽查重責，全部推給地方衛生局，勇於扛起最上游食品大廠稽核權責，否則食安風暴永無止盡，衛福部長烏紗帽誰戴都不安穩！
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Ma Xi Meeting a Bust: Restart Cross-Strait Negotiations
Ma Xi Meeting a Bust: Restart Cross-Strait Negotiations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 9, 2014
Executive Summary: The Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The government lacks the will to improve cross-Strait relations. The Ma government's policy since he took office has been to be "close to the US, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly to Japan." This attempt to maintain a balanced relationship has failed. President Ma should cease insisting on a Ma Xi meeting. He must think instead about how to disarm opposition across the island, and restart cross-Strait negotiations.
Full Text Below:
The Office of the President has announced that former Vice President Vincent Siew will attend next month's APEC Leaders' Meeting in Beijing, as a special envoy. This means that the Ma Xi Meeting is officially a bust. President Ma told Chang Hsien-yao that this was merely a "minor ripple" in cross-Strait relations, not a tsunami. Cross-Strait negotiations will continue to be increasingly systematized. More and more agreements pertaining to trade in services, merchandise, and other matters will be signed
Negotiations over the Ma Xi meeting resulted in many twists and turns. APEC was the most appropriae venue for leaders from the two sides to meet. But Beijing believes that leaders from the two sides should not meet in an international venue. As we can see, the leaders of the two sides are not on the same page. This was perhaps the clearest sign that the Ma Xi meeting would be a bust.
Why were leaders from the two sides not on the same page? Some of the reasons had to do with Taiwan. Some had to do with CCP concerns over the internationalization of cross-Strait relations. Both reasons played a part. Take factors within Taiwan. This year the Sunflower Student Movement disrupted progress in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Cross-Strait relations were enveloped in fog and the participants lost all sense direction. In recent years, cross-Strait interaction has become increasingly systematized. But the Sunflower Student Movement and political obstructionism brought cross-Strait relations to a low point. The government lacks the motivation to make further progress. The two sides are once again feeling their way, guessing about each others' intent. Both sides are seeking a new direction in cross-Strait relations. Both sides are adapting to the new atmosphere in cross-Strait relations.
Leaders from the two sides must deal with two misconceptions about cross-Strait relations. The first misconception is that cross-Strait relations must be either "first international, then cross-Strait," or "first cross-Strait, then international." When the Ma administration first took office in 2008, cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's relations with the outside world followed a fixed pattern. After the two sides signed ECFA, Taiwan, Singapore, and New Zealand signed bilateral free trade agreements. In other words, cross-Strait relations were becoming "first cross-Strait, then international" in nature.
But the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations bill became stalled. Little progress was made in cross-Strait trade. The STA remained stalled in the legislature. MTA negotiations were delayed and remain uncertain. Meanwhile, Taiwan has established economic relations with numerous foreign governments. Taiwan and the United States have signed the BIA, and made significant progress with TIFA. Taiwan may be able to join the TPP and RCEP through different means. Progress in cross-Strait economic relations however lags behind Taiwan's accession to regional economic organizations. Cross-Strait economic relations now appear to be "first international, then cross-Strait" in nature.
The second misconception is that cross-Strait economic relations can improve even if the political situation fails to improve. During the 2012 presidential election, the cross-Strait peace agreement died, stillborn. Cross-Strait military confidence-building measures remained mere talk But following the election, cross-Strait economic relations improved. Eventually cross-Strait investment agreements werre signed, and trade in services negotiations were held, seemingly unaffected by the political standoff. But the highly political Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The establishment of cross-Strait offices now appears remote. Review of the Cross-Strait Oversight Regulations and STA remain stalled in the Legislative Yuan. Internal disagreements over the MTA have arisen. A lack of progress in cross-Strait political relations has led to stagnation in economic relations. Cross-Strait relations now face a double dilemma.
Now consider changes in the international situation. The United States is "returning to Asia." Japan's Abe regime has great power ambitions. Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement has facilitated foreign power intervention in China's internal affairs. This has forced the Chinese mainland to deal with international factors. It has also led to three qualitative changes in cross-Strait relations.
One. Beijing hopes to imake cross-Strait relations more controllable. As a result, it is eager to build a cross-Strait relations firewall, It wants to avoid the internationalization of cross-Strait relations. It wants to prevent foreign governments making unwanted associations regarding cross-Strait relations. CCP leaders have reiterated that leaders from the two sides meeting is a "cross-Strait family affair." This is the main reason it does not want to meet at an international venue.
Two. Beijing hopes to make cross-Strait relations more manipulable. Since 2013, Mainland think tanks have been inviting DPP officials to visit. Beijing does not want cross-Strait exchanges to be limited to the KMT. Beijing expressed its willingness to make contact and communicated with anyone on Taiwan who favors cross-Strait peaceful development. That is why everyone is welcome to visit the mainland and participate in exchanges.
Three. Beijing hopes to make cross-Strait relations more defensible. Cross-Strait relations have warmed considerably in recent years. But the Sunflower Student Movement and the Chang Hsien-yao incident weakened mutual trust. Taiwan independence sentiment has never really abated on Taiwan. That is why when Xi Jinping met New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming a few days ago, he reverted to the "one country, two systems" formulation.
The Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The government lacks the will to improve cross-Strait relations. The Ma government's policy since he took office has been to be "close to the US, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly to Japan." This attempt to maintain a balanced relationship has failed. Taiwan-US arms sales may also lead to unpredictable results.
Whoever creates a problem must solve it. President Ma should cease insisting on a Ma Xi meeting. He must think instead about how to disarm opposition across the island, and restart cross-Strait negotiations.
馬習會破局後，如何找回兩岸關係新動力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.09 01:57 am
總統府宣布，前副總統蕭萬長將以特使身分出席下月在北京舉行的ＡＰＥＣ領袖會議，亦意味「馬習會」正式宣告破局。套句馬總統對張顯耀案的回應，這應該只是兩岸關係的「小波瀾」，而不是大海嘯，因為未來兩岸的制度化協商仍將持續進行，服貿及貨貿等協議也仍會持續推動。
從這次馬習會的協商波折，我方認為ＡＰＥＣ是兩岸領導人會面的最佳場合，對岸則認為兩岸領導人會面不必借助國際場合；可見，兩岸領導人之間「心不契、靈不合」，應是馬習會破局的最大警訊。
兩岸領導人之間的心靈無法契合，有來自台灣內部的因素，也有中共對外的考量，兩者彼此交互作用。先談台灣內部的因素：今年以來，在太陽花反服貿打亂兩岸經貿進展的步調後，兩岸關係便陷入五里霧中，失去了原有的方向感。兩岸互動近年雖漸形制度化，但經太陽花及隨後的各種政治杯葛，似乎逐漸陷入一個低潮，缺乏往前推進或提升的動力。雙方都在重新摸索、猜測彼此推動兩岸關係的意願，雙方都在重新尋找兩岸關係的新方向，雙方也都在適應兩岸關係的新氛圍。
此際，雙方領導人對兩岸關係的走向出現兩個迷思：第一個迷思是：兩岸關係到底是「先國際、後兩岸」，還是「先兩岸、後國際」？馬政府二○○八年上台後，兩岸關係與台灣對外關係出現了一種固定模式，在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ後，台灣便接連與新加坡、紐西蘭簽署雙邊自由貿易協定；亦即，「先兩岸、後國際」似乎是兩岸關係大輪持續滾動的推力。
但由於《兩岸協議監督條例》卡關，兩岸經貿缺乏進展，《服貿》走不出立法院，《貨貿》談判則遲遲未定。但與此同時，台灣對外經濟關係卻有所斬獲：台灣與美國簽署ＢＩＡ、ＴＩＦＡ獲得重大進展，台灣加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ的方向也未變，在兩岸經濟關係的步調落後於台灣加入區域經濟組織的情況下，兩岸經濟關係似乎已經從過去的「先兩岸、後國際」，轉變為「先國際、後兩岸」。
第二個迷思是：如果政治不動，兩岸經濟關係還可以持續推動嗎？在二○一二年總統大選時，儘管兩岸和平協議胎死腹中，兩岸軍事互信機制也僅止於紙上談兵，但選舉過後兩岸經濟關係仍持續推進，陸續完成兩岸投資協議及服貿的談判，絲毫不受政治停滯的影響。然而，今天具有高度政治指標意義的「馬習會」宣告破局，兩岸互設辦事處遙遙無期，在《兩岸監督條例》遲遲無法審查的情況下，服貿協議卡在立法院，貨貿協議也因為台灣內部因素而出現相當大的歧見。兩岸的政治關係沒有進展，經濟關係也同時停滯，這形成兩岸關係的雙重困境。
再談國際情勢的變化。由於美國推動亞洲再平衡政策，日本安倍政權的大國野心，再加上香港占中運動使外國勢力有機會介入中國內政問題，這使得中國大陸亟需面對國際變數，也因而使其在兩岸關係上產生三個質變。
第一，是北京希望加強兩岸關係的「可控制性」。也因此，亟欲在兩岸關係上構築一道防火牆，不僅要避免兩岸關係問題的國際化，更要避免國際間對兩岸關係的發展產生不必要的聯想。中共一再重申兩岸領導人會面是「兩岸自己的事情」，而不需要借助國際場合，這正是主要原因。
其次，是要加強兩岸關係的「可操作性」。自二○一二年以來，大陸智庫便積極邀訪民進黨人士登陸訪問，使兩岸交流不必侷限在國共的平台。北京表示願與贊成兩岸和平發展的台灣各界人士接觸溝通，歡迎他們到大陸交流訪問，這是主要原因。
最後，是讓兩岸關係更有「可預防性」。近年兩岸關係雖然大幅緩和，但太陽花學運及張顯耀事件，都使兩岸間的互信基礎變得薄弱，台灣內部獨派的聲浪也從未止歇。習近平日前會晤新黨郁慕明主席，重提「一國兩制」主張，就是在打預防針。
馬習會宣告破局，顯示兩岸關係欠缺向上提升的推力，也讓馬政府上台以來的「親美、和中、友日」的平衡關係出現缺口；接下來，台美軍售問題將更添增兩岸關係的不可測。
解鈴仍需繫鈴人。馬總統眼前應不必再強求馬習會，而須轉而思考如何化解來自國內的阻力，重新找回推進兩岸關係的動力。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 9, 2014
Executive Summary: The Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The government lacks the will to improve cross-Strait relations. The Ma government's policy since he took office has been to be "close to the US, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly to Japan." This attempt to maintain a balanced relationship has failed. President Ma should cease insisting on a Ma Xi meeting. He must think instead about how to disarm opposition across the island, and restart cross-Strait negotiations.
Full Text Below:
The Office of the President has announced that former Vice President Vincent Siew will attend next month's APEC Leaders' Meeting in Beijing, as a special envoy. This means that the Ma Xi Meeting is officially a bust. President Ma told Chang Hsien-yao that this was merely a "minor ripple" in cross-Strait relations, not a tsunami. Cross-Strait negotiations will continue to be increasingly systematized. More and more agreements pertaining to trade in services, merchandise, and other matters will be signed
Negotiations over the Ma Xi meeting resulted in many twists and turns. APEC was the most appropriae venue for leaders from the two sides to meet. But Beijing believes that leaders from the two sides should not meet in an international venue. As we can see, the leaders of the two sides are not on the same page. This was perhaps the clearest sign that the Ma Xi meeting would be a bust.
Why were leaders from the two sides not on the same page? Some of the reasons had to do with Taiwan. Some had to do with CCP concerns over the internationalization of cross-Strait relations. Both reasons played a part. Take factors within Taiwan. This year the Sunflower Student Movement disrupted progress in cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Cross-Strait relations were enveloped in fog and the participants lost all sense direction. In recent years, cross-Strait interaction has become increasingly systematized. But the Sunflower Student Movement and political obstructionism brought cross-Strait relations to a low point. The government lacks the motivation to make further progress. The two sides are once again feeling their way, guessing about each others' intent. Both sides are seeking a new direction in cross-Strait relations. Both sides are adapting to the new atmosphere in cross-Strait relations.
Leaders from the two sides must deal with two misconceptions about cross-Strait relations. The first misconception is that cross-Strait relations must be either "first international, then cross-Strait," or "first cross-Strait, then international." When the Ma administration first took office in 2008, cross-Strait relations and Taiwan's relations with the outside world followed a fixed pattern. After the two sides signed ECFA, Taiwan, Singapore, and New Zealand signed bilateral free trade agreements. In other words, cross-Strait relations were becoming "first cross-Strait, then international" in nature.
But the Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight Regulations bill became stalled. Little progress was made in cross-Strait trade. The STA remained stalled in the legislature. MTA negotiations were delayed and remain uncertain. Meanwhile, Taiwan has established economic relations with numerous foreign governments. Taiwan and the United States have signed the BIA, and made significant progress with TIFA. Taiwan may be able to join the TPP and RCEP through different means. Progress in cross-Strait economic relations however lags behind Taiwan's accession to regional economic organizations. Cross-Strait economic relations now appear to be "first international, then cross-Strait" in nature.
The second misconception is that cross-Strait economic relations can improve even if the political situation fails to improve. During the 2012 presidential election, the cross-Strait peace agreement died, stillborn. Cross-Strait military confidence-building measures remained mere talk But following the election, cross-Strait economic relations improved. Eventually cross-Strait investment agreements werre signed, and trade in services negotiations were held, seemingly unaffected by the political standoff. But the highly political Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The establishment of cross-Strait offices now appears remote. Review of the Cross-Strait Oversight Regulations and STA remain stalled in the Legislative Yuan. Internal disagreements over the MTA have arisen. A lack of progress in cross-Strait political relations has led to stagnation in economic relations. Cross-Strait relations now face a double dilemma.
Now consider changes in the international situation. The United States is "returning to Asia." Japan's Abe regime has great power ambitions. Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement has facilitated foreign power intervention in China's internal affairs. This has forced the Chinese mainland to deal with international factors. It has also led to three qualitative changes in cross-Strait relations.
One. Beijing hopes to imake cross-Strait relations more controllable. As a result, it is eager to build a cross-Strait relations firewall, It wants to avoid the internationalization of cross-Strait relations. It wants to prevent foreign governments making unwanted associations regarding cross-Strait relations. CCP leaders have reiterated that leaders from the two sides meeting is a "cross-Strait family affair." This is the main reason it does not want to meet at an international venue.
Two. Beijing hopes to make cross-Strait relations more manipulable. Since 2013, Mainland think tanks have been inviting DPP officials to visit. Beijing does not want cross-Strait exchanges to be limited to the KMT. Beijing expressed its willingness to make contact and communicated with anyone on Taiwan who favors cross-Strait peaceful development. That is why everyone is welcome to visit the mainland and participate in exchanges.
Three. Beijing hopes to make cross-Strait relations more defensible. Cross-Strait relations have warmed considerably in recent years. But the Sunflower Student Movement and the Chang Hsien-yao incident weakened mutual trust. Taiwan independence sentiment has never really abated on Taiwan. That is why when Xi Jinping met New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming a few days ago, he reverted to the "one country, two systems" formulation.
The Ma Xi meeting is now a bust. The government lacks the will to improve cross-Strait relations. The Ma government's policy since he took office has been to be "close to the US, at peace with the Mainland, and friendly to Japan." This attempt to maintain a balanced relationship has failed. Taiwan-US arms sales may also lead to unpredictable results.
Whoever creates a problem must solve it. President Ma should cease insisting on a Ma Xi meeting. He must think instead about how to disarm opposition across the island, and restart cross-Strait negotiations.
馬習會破局後，如何找回兩岸關係新動力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.09 01:57 am
總統府宣布，前副總統蕭萬長將以特使身分出席下月在北京舉行的ＡＰＥＣ領袖會議，亦意味「馬習會」正式宣告破局。套句馬總統對張顯耀案的回應，這應該只是兩岸關係的「小波瀾」，而不是大海嘯，因為未來兩岸的制度化協商仍將持續進行，服貿及貨貿等協議也仍會持續推動。
從這次馬習會的協商波折，我方認為ＡＰＥＣ是兩岸領導人會面的最佳場合，對岸則認為兩岸領導人會面不必借助國際場合；可見，兩岸領導人之間「心不契、靈不合」，應是馬習會破局的最大警訊。
兩岸領導人之間的心靈無法契合，有來自台灣內部的因素，也有中共對外的考量，兩者彼此交互作用。先談台灣內部的因素：今年以來，在太陽花反服貿打亂兩岸經貿進展的步調後，兩岸關係便陷入五里霧中，失去了原有的方向感。兩岸互動近年雖漸形制度化，但經太陽花及隨後的各種政治杯葛，似乎逐漸陷入一個低潮，缺乏往前推進或提升的動力。雙方都在重新摸索、猜測彼此推動兩岸關係的意願，雙方都在重新尋找兩岸關係的新方向，雙方也都在適應兩岸關係的新氛圍。
此際，雙方領導人對兩岸關係的走向出現兩個迷思：第一個迷思是：兩岸關係到底是「先國際、後兩岸」，還是「先兩岸、後國際」？馬政府二○○八年上台後，兩岸關係與台灣對外關係出現了一種固定模式，在兩岸簽署ＥＣＦＡ後，台灣便接連與新加坡、紐西蘭簽署雙邊自由貿易協定；亦即，「先兩岸、後國際」似乎是兩岸關係大輪持續滾動的推力。
但由於《兩岸協議監督條例》卡關，兩岸經貿缺乏進展，《服貿》走不出立法院，《貨貿》談判則遲遲未定。但與此同時，台灣對外經濟關係卻有所斬獲：台灣與美國簽署ＢＩＡ、ＴＩＦＡ獲得重大進展，台灣加入ＴＰＰ及ＲＣＥＰ的方向也未變，在兩岸經濟關係的步調落後於台灣加入區域經濟組織的情況下，兩岸經濟關係似乎已經從過去的「先兩岸、後國際」，轉變為「先國際、後兩岸」。
第二個迷思是：如果政治不動，兩岸經濟關係還可以持續推動嗎？在二○一二年總統大選時，儘管兩岸和平協議胎死腹中，兩岸軍事互信機制也僅止於紙上談兵，但選舉過後兩岸經濟關係仍持續推進，陸續完成兩岸投資協議及服貿的談判，絲毫不受政治停滯的影響。然而，今天具有高度政治指標意義的「馬習會」宣告破局，兩岸互設辦事處遙遙無期，在《兩岸監督條例》遲遲無法審查的情況下，服貿協議卡在立法院，貨貿協議也因為台灣內部因素而出現相當大的歧見。兩岸的政治關係沒有進展，經濟關係也同時停滯，這形成兩岸關係的雙重困境。
再談國際情勢的變化。由於美國推動亞洲再平衡政策，日本安倍政權的大國野心，再加上香港占中運動使外國勢力有機會介入中國內政問題，這使得中國大陸亟需面對國際變數，也因而使其在兩岸關係上產生三個質變。
第一，是北京希望加強兩岸關係的「可控制性」。也因此，亟欲在兩岸關係上構築一道防火牆，不僅要避免兩岸關係問題的國際化，更要避免國際間對兩岸關係的發展產生不必要的聯想。中共一再重申兩岸領導人會面是「兩岸自己的事情」，而不需要借助國際場合，這正是主要原因。
其次，是要加強兩岸關係的「可操作性」。自二○一二年以來，大陸智庫便積極邀訪民進黨人士登陸訪問，使兩岸交流不必侷限在國共的平台。北京表示願與贊成兩岸和平發展的台灣各界人士接觸溝通，歡迎他們到大陸交流訪問，這是主要原因。
最後，是讓兩岸關係更有「可預防性」。近年兩岸關係雖然大幅緩和，但太陽花學運及張顯耀事件，都使兩岸間的互信基礎變得薄弱，台灣內部獨派的聲浪也從未止歇。習近平日前會晤新黨郁慕明主席，重提「一國兩制」主張，就是在打預防針。
馬習會宣告破局，顯示兩岸關係欠缺向上提升的推力，也讓馬政府上台以來的「親美、和中、友日」的平衡關係出現缺口；接下來，台美軍售問題將更添增兩岸關係的不可測。
解鈴仍需繫鈴人。馬總統眼前應不必再強求馬習會，而須轉而思考如何化解來自國內的阻力，重新找回推進兩岸關係的動力。
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Hong Kong's Occupy Central: Implications for Taiwan
Hong Kong's Occupy Central: Implications for Taiwan
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 8, 2014
Executive Summary: Hong Kong needs democracy. Taiwan needs dignity. The people of Hong Kong are fighting for democracy, The people of Taiwan are fighting for dignity. Both sides of the Strait and the Hong Kong government are promoting democracy. But they must avoid haste, both in their attitudes and their practices.
Full Text Below:
The Hong Kong Chief Executive election has led to a major controversy. The Hong Kong Student Federation and other pan-democrats initiated the Occupy Central movement. Some college students boycotted classes in response, triggering massive protests, and days of unrest in the streets. The pan-democrats hoped to force the CCP to lift the restrictions on the Hong Kong Chief Executive nomination process. The Hong Kong government initially adopted a hardline stance. It tried to disperse the crowds. But the conflict expanded, and attracted worldwide attention. The USA, the UK, and the EU all issued statements calling for reason and restraint. Mainland officials have reiterated that Hong Kong's affairs are a domestic issue. Beijing firmly opposes any violations of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and any disruptions of social order. It hopes that foreign governments do not send the wrong signals. Beijing has adopted a hardline stance. Apparently room for compromise is limited.
Mainland geopolitical power has increased. Relations between Hong Kong and Taiwan are close. The ROC government is concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. Agencies charged with national security matters have examined the future of Hong Kong and weighed its impact on Taiwan. Premier Jiang Yi Hua told lawmakers that the government supports the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. It remains optimistic, and hopes that the Hong Kong government will heed the aspirations of the people, remain rational, and exercise moderation. Protest activities hae resulted in injuries. The ROC government has expressed regret. President Ma Ying-jeou also expressed understanding and support. He hoped that the Mainland authorities would handle the matter peacefully and cautiously. He also urged Hong Kongers to find a peaceful and rational means of expressing their demands. Taiwan has expressed support in principle, but wants to avoid improper and untoward interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs.
There has been much rhetoric about how "Today's Hong Kong is tomorrow's Taiwan" on Taiwan. This reveals at least two problems. One. It reflects public fear and distrust of the CCP on Taiwan. It could also be a case of crocodile tears. People may fear that one day Taiwan will be in the same situation as Hong Kong. Two. It reflects some peoples' lack of confidence in Taiwan. Actually, today's Taiwan could be tomorrow's Hong Kong. Taiwan's development has its pros and cons, but its evolution is nevertheless worth studying. Actually, it involves a fundamental question of identity. As the British media has said, Mainland China is not Hong Kong's enemy, it is its future. Hong Kongers must understand this. So must the public on Taiwan. The Mainland is Taiwan's hope and opportunity, not its nightmare and threat. Knowing this will make it easier to find one's way.
Dr. Sun Yat-sen said that human rights are given to us by Heaven. The fight for human rights however, is our own. This is the difference between natural rights and civil rights asserted through revolution. We respect and support the Hong Kong people's fight for their rights, and their desire to determine their own future. But we must also realize that everything in this world has pros and cons. Policy choices often involve trade-offs. Nothing is all good or bad. The Hong Kong protest groups have dared to shout "umbrella revolution" slogans. They have issued an ultimatum to the government, threatening to occupy government offices. By implication, they mean to confront or even overthrow the regime. If so, they must be prepared to pay the price. Their careers, their futures, their economic security are likely to be affected. They may even face prison or injury. After all, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Beijing and Washington are preparing for the November APEC meeting between Xi Jinping and Barack Obama. Washington will probably raise human rights issues. But Washington has issued two clear signals. One. CCP Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited the United States and spoke with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Midway through Obama joined the conversation. Two. Washington's response to the events in Hong Kong have been limited to reaffirming its principles and expressing its concern. It has not assumed a high-profile by condemning Beijing. Clearly Washington is looking at the big picture. It does not dare, at least not openly, to have it out with Beijing. This is something everyone must understand. Even a government as powerful as the United States, must weigh its principles, ideals, and values against its national interests. Only when they coincide will the United States wave the banner of morality.
The protests in Hong Kong may grow, or they may soon end peacefully. But the events have harmed Hong Kong's economy and torn society in two. The most likely result of long-term confrontation would be a lose-lose situation. To be fair, the fight for democracy and opposition to Mainland China are two very different matters that must not be confused.
Mankind already knows that all political systems are bad systems. Democracy is a relatively good one. In the long run, its political mechanisms and limits on power are more consistent with the interests of the people. But democracy is a learning process. It requires compromise and dialogue. Democracy requires the rule of law and responsibility. The fight for democracy requires gradualism and reason. No one can claim to represent the truth.
Hong Kong needs democracy. Taiwan needs dignity. The people of Hong Kong are fighting for democracy, The people of Taiwan are fighting for dignity. Both sides of the Strait and the Hong Kong government are promoting democracy. But they must avoid haste, both in their attitudes and their practices.
社論－香港占中對台灣的啟示
2014年10月08日 04:10
本報訊
香港特首普選方案發生重大爭議，學聯等泛民主派人士發動占中，部分大學生罷課響應，引發大規模群眾聚集抗議事件，街頭動盪多日。泛民主派人士希望迫使中共改變對香港特首產生方式的限制，港府最初以強硬態度回應，試圖驅散民眾，衝突一度擴大，引起全世界的關注。美國、英國、歐盟先後發表聲明，呼籲理性自制，中共官方則表示，香港事務為內政問題，北京堅決反對香港地區發生破壞法治、社會安寧的違法行為，希望相關國家謹言慎行，不要發出錯誤的訊號。北京態度強硬，妥協的空間似乎有限。
大陸地緣政治力量崛起後，台港關係更是脣齒相依，政府當然高度關切香港局勢，相信國安單位曾對香港未來的可能發展、影響與衝擊進行過討論及評估。行政院長江宜樺在答覆立法委員質詢時表示，政府支持香港民眾爭取民主的訴求，樂觀其成，希望香港政府能夠傾聽人民的訴求，保持理性、節制。抗爭活動所造成的衝突和受傷，政府也表達了遺憾之意。馬英九總統也對占中行動表達了理解與支持的立場，希望大陸當局和平審慎處理，但也強調港民應用和平理性的方式表達訴求。台灣審慎的表達了原則性的支持，極力避免不當、過當的介入香港內政。
台灣出現不少「今日香港、明日台灣」的說法，至少凸顯了兩個問題。首先，反映出台灣民眾對中共的擔心與不信任，或許也有兔死狐悲的感覺，擔心有朝一日台灣淪入今日香港的處境；二是台灣對自己缺乏信心，不能自信的認定，今日的台灣可望成為明日的香港，台灣的發展經驗不管正反仍有值得學習之處。其實這裡面牽涉到一個最基本的認同問題，就像英國媒體所說，中國是香港的未來而非敵人，港人對此應有體認；同樣的，台灣也必須了解，大陸是台灣的希望與機會，而非夢魘和威脅，認識清楚就容易找到出路。
國父孫中山先生曾經說過，人權是天賦的，民權則要靠爭取而來，這就是所謂的天賦人權與革命民權之別。我們一方面尊重、支持香港民眾爭取自己的權利，決定自己未來的渴望，但大家也應理解，天下任何事情有利有弊，有時只是政策的選擇和優先順序的取捨，沒有絕對的好壞。既然香港抗爭團體敢於喊出「雨傘革命」的口號，並對港府發出最後通牒，主張占領官署，就意味著與體制對抗甚或推翻體制，那麼就要有付出代價的心理準備，自己的事業前途，未來的經濟安全都可能受到影響，甚至還有流血坐牢的可能，畢竟天下沒有白吃的午餐。
中美之間正在為11月亞太經合會上習近平與歐巴馬的會面預為準備，美國屆時或將提出人權問題，但美國已發出兩個明確信號，一是中共外長王毅訪美與國安顧問萊斯會談中間，歐巴馬中途加入談話。二是華府對香港占中事件，僅止於重申原則、表達關切，並未高調譴責北京，顯見美國仍得從戰略高度出發，以大局為重，不敢，至少不願公開和北京撕破臉，全面進行對抗。於此，大家必須體會，即使強如美國，也只有當原則、理想、價值和國家利益相吻合且行動的代價符合美國利益之際，才會高高掛起道德大旗。
香港的抗爭活動仍在持續發展，即或短期內能夠平和落幕，但事件對香港經濟的傷害與社會分化及互不信任已經造成，長期對抗的最可能結果就是雙輸、多輸的局面。持平而論，爭取民主和反中是截然不同的兩件事，不可混為一談。
人類已知的所有政治制度都是壞制度，民主是相對較好的一種，長期而言，其政治運作制度和權力界線都比較符合民眾的利益。但民主也是一個學習、發展、妥協、對話的過程，民主必須在法治及責任中運行，漸進主義其實是爭取民主相對合理的作法，沒有人可以自稱代表真理。
香港需要民主、台灣需要尊嚴，香港民眾在爭取民主、台灣民眾在爭取尊嚴之際，兩岸及香港政府在推動民主建設時，如何避免焦躁的心態和作法，值得慎思。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 8, 2014
Executive Summary: Hong Kong needs democracy. Taiwan needs dignity. The people of Hong Kong are fighting for democracy, The people of Taiwan are fighting for dignity. Both sides of the Strait and the Hong Kong government are promoting democracy. But they must avoid haste, both in their attitudes and their practices.
Full Text Below:
The Hong Kong Chief Executive election has led to a major controversy. The Hong Kong Student Federation and other pan-democrats initiated the Occupy Central movement. Some college students boycotted classes in response, triggering massive protests, and days of unrest in the streets. The pan-democrats hoped to force the CCP to lift the restrictions on the Hong Kong Chief Executive nomination process. The Hong Kong government initially adopted a hardline stance. It tried to disperse the crowds. But the conflict expanded, and attracted worldwide attention. The USA, the UK, and the EU all issued statements calling for reason and restraint. Mainland officials have reiterated that Hong Kong's affairs are a domestic issue. Beijing firmly opposes any violations of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and any disruptions of social order. It hopes that foreign governments do not send the wrong signals. Beijing has adopted a hardline stance. Apparently room for compromise is limited.
Mainland geopolitical power has increased. Relations between Hong Kong and Taiwan are close. The ROC government is concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. Agencies charged with national security matters have examined the future of Hong Kong and weighed its impact on Taiwan. Premier Jiang Yi Hua told lawmakers that the government supports the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. It remains optimistic, and hopes that the Hong Kong government will heed the aspirations of the people, remain rational, and exercise moderation. Protest activities hae resulted in injuries. The ROC government has expressed regret. President Ma Ying-jeou also expressed understanding and support. He hoped that the Mainland authorities would handle the matter peacefully and cautiously. He also urged Hong Kongers to find a peaceful and rational means of expressing their demands. Taiwan has expressed support in principle, but wants to avoid improper and untoward interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs.
There has been much rhetoric about how "Today's Hong Kong is tomorrow's Taiwan" on Taiwan. This reveals at least two problems. One. It reflects public fear and distrust of the CCP on Taiwan. It could also be a case of crocodile tears. People may fear that one day Taiwan will be in the same situation as Hong Kong. Two. It reflects some peoples' lack of confidence in Taiwan. Actually, today's Taiwan could be tomorrow's Hong Kong. Taiwan's development has its pros and cons, but its evolution is nevertheless worth studying. Actually, it involves a fundamental question of identity. As the British media has said, Mainland China is not Hong Kong's enemy, it is its future. Hong Kongers must understand this. So must the public on Taiwan. The Mainland is Taiwan's hope and opportunity, not its nightmare and threat. Knowing this will make it easier to find one's way.
Dr. Sun Yat-sen said that human rights are given to us by Heaven. The fight for human rights however, is our own. This is the difference between natural rights and civil rights asserted through revolution. We respect and support the Hong Kong people's fight for their rights, and their desire to determine their own future. But we must also realize that everything in this world has pros and cons. Policy choices often involve trade-offs. Nothing is all good or bad. The Hong Kong protest groups have dared to shout "umbrella revolution" slogans. They have issued an ultimatum to the government, threatening to occupy government offices. By implication, they mean to confront or even overthrow the regime. If so, they must be prepared to pay the price. Their careers, their futures, their economic security are likely to be affected. They may even face prison or injury. After all, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Beijing and Washington are preparing for the November APEC meeting between Xi Jinping and Barack Obama. Washington will probably raise human rights issues. But Washington has issued two clear signals. One. CCP Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited the United States and spoke with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Midway through Obama joined the conversation. Two. Washington's response to the events in Hong Kong have been limited to reaffirming its principles and expressing its concern. It has not assumed a high-profile by condemning Beijing. Clearly Washington is looking at the big picture. It does not dare, at least not openly, to have it out with Beijing. This is something everyone must understand. Even a government as powerful as the United States, must weigh its principles, ideals, and values against its national interests. Only when they coincide will the United States wave the banner of morality.
The protests in Hong Kong may grow, or they may soon end peacefully. But the events have harmed Hong Kong's economy and torn society in two. The most likely result of long-term confrontation would be a lose-lose situation. To be fair, the fight for democracy and opposition to Mainland China are two very different matters that must not be confused.
Mankind already knows that all political systems are bad systems. Democracy is a relatively good one. In the long run, its political mechanisms and limits on power are more consistent with the interests of the people. But democracy is a learning process. It requires compromise and dialogue. Democracy requires the rule of law and responsibility. The fight for democracy requires gradualism and reason. No one can claim to represent the truth.
Hong Kong needs democracy. Taiwan needs dignity. The people of Hong Kong are fighting for democracy, The people of Taiwan are fighting for dignity. Both sides of the Strait and the Hong Kong government are promoting democracy. But they must avoid haste, both in their attitudes and their practices.
社論－香港占中對台灣的啟示
2014年10月08日 04:10
本報訊
香港特首普選方案發生重大爭議，學聯等泛民主派人士發動占中，部分大學生罷課響應，引發大規模群眾聚集抗議事件，街頭動盪多日。泛民主派人士希望迫使中共改變對香港特首產生方式的限制，港府最初以強硬態度回應，試圖驅散民眾，衝突一度擴大，引起全世界的關注。美國、英國、歐盟先後發表聲明，呼籲理性自制，中共官方則表示，香港事務為內政問題，北京堅決反對香港地區發生破壞法治、社會安寧的違法行為，希望相關國家謹言慎行，不要發出錯誤的訊號。北京態度強硬，妥協的空間似乎有限。
大陸地緣政治力量崛起後，台港關係更是脣齒相依，政府當然高度關切香港局勢，相信國安單位曾對香港未來的可能發展、影響與衝擊進行過討論及評估。行政院長江宜樺在答覆立法委員質詢時表示，政府支持香港民眾爭取民主的訴求，樂觀其成，希望香港政府能夠傾聽人民的訴求，保持理性、節制。抗爭活動所造成的衝突和受傷，政府也表達了遺憾之意。馬英九總統也對占中行動表達了理解與支持的立場，希望大陸當局和平審慎處理，但也強調港民應用和平理性的方式表達訴求。台灣審慎的表達了原則性的支持，極力避免不當、過當的介入香港內政。
台灣出現不少「今日香港、明日台灣」的說法，至少凸顯了兩個問題。首先，反映出台灣民眾對中共的擔心與不信任，或許也有兔死狐悲的感覺，擔心有朝一日台灣淪入今日香港的處境；二是台灣對自己缺乏信心，不能自信的認定，今日的台灣可望成為明日的香港，台灣的發展經驗不管正反仍有值得學習之處。其實這裡面牽涉到一個最基本的認同問題，就像英國媒體所說，中國是香港的未來而非敵人，港人對此應有體認；同樣的，台灣也必須了解，大陸是台灣的希望與機會，而非夢魘和威脅，認識清楚就容易找到出路。
國父孫中山先生曾經說過，人權是天賦的，民權則要靠爭取而來，這就是所謂的天賦人權與革命民權之別。我們一方面尊重、支持香港民眾爭取自己的權利，決定自己未來的渴望，但大家也應理解，天下任何事情有利有弊，有時只是政策的選擇和優先順序的取捨，沒有絕對的好壞。既然香港抗爭團體敢於喊出「雨傘革命」的口號，並對港府發出最後通牒，主張占領官署，就意味著與體制對抗甚或推翻體制，那麼就要有付出代價的心理準備，自己的事業前途，未來的經濟安全都可能受到影響，甚至還有流血坐牢的可能，畢竟天下沒有白吃的午餐。
中美之間正在為11月亞太經合會上習近平與歐巴馬的會面預為準備，美國屆時或將提出人權問題，但美國已發出兩個明確信號，一是中共外長王毅訪美與國安顧問萊斯會談中間，歐巴馬中途加入談話。二是華府對香港占中事件，僅止於重申原則、表達關切，並未高調譴責北京，顯見美國仍得從戰略高度出發，以大局為重，不敢，至少不願公開和北京撕破臉，全面進行對抗。於此，大家必須體會，即使強如美國，也只有當原則、理想、價值和國家利益相吻合且行動的代價符合美國利益之際，才會高高掛起道德大旗。
香港的抗爭活動仍在持續發展，即或短期內能夠平和落幕，但事件對香港經濟的傷害與社會分化及互不信任已經造成，長期對抗的最可能結果就是雙輸、多輸的局面。持平而論，爭取民主和反中是截然不同的兩件事，不可混為一談。
人類已知的所有政治制度都是壞制度，民主是相對較好的一種，長期而言，其政治運作制度和權力界線都比較符合民眾的利益。但民主也是一個學習、發展、妥協、對話的過程，民主必須在法治及責任中運行，漸進主義其實是爭取民主相對合理的作法，沒有人可以自稱代表真理。
香港需要民主、台灣需要尊嚴，香港民眾在爭取民主、台灣民眾在爭取尊嚴之際，兩岸及香港政府在推動民主建設時，如何避免焦躁的心態和作法，值得慎思。
Monday, October 6, 2014
Beijing Speaks of a Meeting of the Minds: Why Not Begin with Hong Kong?
Beijing Speaks of a Meeting of the Minds: Why Not Begin with Hong Kong?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2014
Executive Summary: When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch. Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?
Full Text Below:
When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." If Beijing is serious about this, why not begin with Hong Kong?
On Sunday night the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Hong Kong Government officials convened their first "preparatory dialogue meeting." Yesterday, Monday, was a work day. Occupy Central members announced that they would not disperse, but would clear the roads. For the most part, Hong Kong returned to normal. People could get to their places of work. Primary school students could get to their schools. The government decided not to disperse the gathered masses.
Amidst the struggle between the government and the people, this was an achievement worthy of recognition. It may be a turning point in the successive waves of confrontation between the government and the people. Contrast this with the masses in Thailand and Ukraine who stormed government buildings, or with the Tiananmen Incident. The Occupy Central movement has now reached a turning point. If a mutually acceptable solution can be found, the Hong Kong experience could establish a new paradigm for global democracy. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. We hope that Beijing, the Hong Kong government, and the public will establish a model worthy of emulation, and turn a negative event in the history of Hong Kong into a positive event in the history of China.
The ball is now in Zhongnanhai's court. Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the Hong Kong public. As the Hong Kong Federation of Students put it, "Political problems requiire political solutions. Talks and compromise with the government are the only way. Beijing simply demand that the people disperse, while it refuses to give an inch." When pepper spray and tear gas fail to solve the problem, Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the people of Hong Kong. It cannot refuse to give an inch.
As we look back, we see that "sham universal suffrage" was merely the result of bureaucratic inertia. Why did Beijing insist that universal suffrage must be subject to "filters?" Why did it assume that "screening" could filter out "unpatriotic people who do not love Hong Kong?" As long as the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland remains the same, why didn't Beijing think it could not acquire an absolute majority under "genuine universal suffrage"? Why did it feel compelled to resort to tear gas and batons to maintain "sham universal suffrage"? During the Occupy Central turmoil, Beijing did everything it could to uphold "sham universal suffrage," a weapon that ripped Hong Kong apart. This revealed Beijing's weakness and timidity. It undermined the credibility of Deng Xiaoping's historic legacy of "one country two systems." By now Beijing must realize that tear gas cannot maintain "one country, two systems." The correct way is to seek a "meeting of the minds."
As matters stand, Beijing looks both weak and guilty. For example, Beijing invoked the "rule of law." It accused the Occupy Central movement of interfering with the conduct of daily life. But those advocating the "rule of law" used "sham universal suffrage" to violate the law of democracy. In today's Hong Kong, those who advocate "sham universal suffrage" hae tear gas. Those who advocate "genuine universal suffrage" can only occupy the streets. Faced with tear gas. whither any "meeting of the minds?"
In fact, the election of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong by means of genuine universal suffrage under "one country, two systems" was a commitment made to Hong Kong by Deng Xiaoping and three generations of CCP political leaders. It is the only way to ensure a "meeting of the minds" with Hong Kong society. At this juncture, the Beijing authorities should be affirming "genuine universal suffrage." Such an affirmation should been seen as honoring a political commitment made by Deng Xiaoping. It should be seen as the communist regime's test bed for its policy of "Letting some of people experience democracy first." In other words, it should see this as a political achievement. It should do everything in its power to realize it. It should not see it as a political burden, and use tear gas against the public. Beijing has no reason to oppose "genuine universal suffrage" or refuse to give an inch.
Beijing's political resources are abundant. The protestors are disorganized and weak. They face increasing social pressures from anti-Occupy Central forces. Beijing must not be short-sighted. It must resort to force to suppress public discontent, but instead "free up its mind." It must seek solutions from a higher perspective. That is the way to reach a "meeting of the minds"with Hong Kong society, and to resolve the "sham universal suffrage" induced public controversy. If Beijing is confident, and does not have a guilty conscience, it can freely make concessions. These should not be seen purely as concessions to the protesters. They should be seen as a means of enhancing its own political credibiliy, and upholding the reputation of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." From this perspective, there is no need to concern oneself over who made concessions today. This is a rare opportunity for Beijing to adopt a political initiative that can enhance its credibility.
An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch.
Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?
北京談心靈契合 何妨先從香港做起
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.07 11:07 am
上圖為今年9月28日香港為爭真普選抗議情形。下圖則為1989年5月17日北京天安門廣場上人民阻擋車子前進情形。美聯社
習近平最近談兩岸關係，使用了「心靈契合」這個新語彙；倘若北京心存此念，「心靈契合」何妨先從香港做起？
周日夜間，香港學聯與港府官員進行首場「對話籌備會」；昨天周一上班日，在占中人員「不撤離／開通道」的狀態下，香港大致回復了政府上班及小學以上學校上課的情勢，港府亦未對仍占據街道的群眾清場。
客觀而論，這是港府及抗爭群眾間十分值得肯定的共同成就，也可能是這一波官民對峙覓得出口的關鍵性拐點。若與泰國及烏克蘭的群眾風暴相比，或與天安門事件對照，此次占中風潮經此轉折，倘能出現一個各方大致能夠相互接受的解決方案，則此次香港事件亦不無可能在舉世民主運動中創造出一個新典範。值此風暴中出現曙光之際，我們期望北京、港府及抗爭的港民皆能以創造典範自期，使得此一可能負向發展的事件，能在香港歷史、中國歷史上展現重大的正面意義。
責任主要在中南海，方法則是必須追求北京與港人的「心靈契合」。簡單一句話，如學聯所說：「政治問題政治解決，政府商討及讓步是唯一辦法，不能只教市民撤走及解散，自己則寸步不讓。」當胡椒噴霧及催淚彈不能解決問題時，北京必須另覓能與港人「心靈契合」的辦法，那就是不能寸步不讓。
如今回顧，「假普選」根本是出自官僚慣性思維的「莫須有的議題」。為什麼北京堅持「普選」須經「篩選」？又為什麼認為若不經「篩選」，就一定會選出「不愛國／不愛港」之人？以香港與大陸的依存關係，北京因何沒有自信能以「絕對多數制」來贏得香港的「真普選」？何況，難道永遠要用催淚彈及警棍來維持「假普選」？在這一波占中風潮中，北京不啻是在全力維護這個已成為撕裂香港之凶器的「莫須有的假普選」。這不但顯露了北京的理屈與心虛，更不啻嚴重地毀傷了鄧小平所創「一國兩制」的歷史聲譽。北京如今應當已悟出一個道理，那就是：在「一國兩制」中，催淚彈不可恃，追求「心靈契合」始是正辦。
處此情勢，北京是理屈與心虛的。例如：北京談的「法治」，是占中妨害了市民生活；但占中者主張的「法治」，則是「假普選」根本違反了民主政治的「法後之法」。今日香港，是主張「假普選」者擁有催淚彈，但主張「真普選」者只能占據街道、面對催淚彈。如此，「心靈契合」將從何談起？
其實，在香港舉行「特首及立法會議員真普選」，是「一國兩制」的應然及必然歸趨。這當視為鄧小平以降中共三代領導班子的政治承諾，更是維繫香港社會「心靈契合」的不二路徑。此際，北京當局應將趨近「真普選」，視為兌現鄧小平政治承諾的共同責任，亦視為中共政權一方「讓一部分人先民主起來」的政治實驗田；也就是說，應當視此為政治的昇華與成就而盡力加以完成，不應視之為政治負荷而欲以催淚彈來對抗民意。然則，北京即無理由在「真普選」上「寸步不讓」。
在當前情勢中，北京的政治資源豐足，而抗爭者的組織性及持久性較弱，且又逐漸面對反占中的社會壓力；北京不應以短視眼光操作，想要以力壓人，而應「解放思想」，向久遠及高大處來找尋解決方案，也就是真正從重建香港社會「心靈契合」處，來解決「假普選」引發的民意爭議。北京若有自信，若不心虛，自有「讓步」的空間；這當然不應視為只是對抗爭者的讓步，更應視為北京當局藉此提升了自己的政治境界，也保全了鄧小平「一國兩制」的聲譽。準此，也就無須用「看誰讓步」的角度來看今日情勢，因為這正是中共主動創造政治昇華與成就的難得機遇。
契機似已出現。港府宣示「推遲第二階段政改諮詢」，且聲稱「對話大門永遠開著」；北京不會讓港府開著「對話大門」，卻「寸步不讓」吧？與天安門坦克車清場、泰國紅黃對抗及烏克蘭撕裂國家對比，此次香港風潮能走到今日出現緩解契機的地步，誠屬不易；北京若真想在香港實施「心靈契合」的「一國兩制」，首須提升自己的政治境界，不能「只教市民解散，自己寸步不讓」。
心靈契合，何妨先從香港做起？
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2014
Executive Summary: When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch. Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?
Full Text Below:
When Xi Jinping spoke recently about cross-Strait relations. he spoke of a "meeting of the minds." If Beijing is serious about this, why not begin with Hong Kong?
On Sunday night the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Hong Kong Government officials convened their first "preparatory dialogue meeting." Yesterday, Monday, was a work day. Occupy Central members announced that they would not disperse, but would clear the roads. For the most part, Hong Kong returned to normal. People could get to their places of work. Primary school students could get to their schools. The government decided not to disperse the gathered masses.
Amidst the struggle between the government and the people, this was an achievement worthy of recognition. It may be a turning point in the successive waves of confrontation between the government and the people. Contrast this with the masses in Thailand and Ukraine who stormed government buildings, or with the Tiananmen Incident. The Occupy Central movement has now reached a turning point. If a mutually acceptable solution can be found, the Hong Kong experience could establish a new paradigm for global democracy. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. We hope that Beijing, the Hong Kong government, and the public will establish a model worthy of emulation, and turn a negative event in the history of Hong Kong into a positive event in the history of China.
The ball is now in Zhongnanhai's court. Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the Hong Kong public. As the Hong Kong Federation of Students put it, "Political problems requiire political solutions. Talks and compromise with the government are the only way. Beijing simply demand that the people disperse, while it refuses to give an inch." When pepper spray and tear gas fail to solve the problem, Beijing must seek a "meeting of the minds" with the people of Hong Kong. It cannot refuse to give an inch.
As we look back, we see that "sham universal suffrage" was merely the result of bureaucratic inertia. Why did Beijing insist that universal suffrage must be subject to "filters?" Why did it assume that "screening" could filter out "unpatriotic people who do not love Hong Kong?" As long as the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland remains the same, why didn't Beijing think it could not acquire an absolute majority under "genuine universal suffrage"? Why did it feel compelled to resort to tear gas and batons to maintain "sham universal suffrage"? During the Occupy Central turmoil, Beijing did everything it could to uphold "sham universal suffrage," a weapon that ripped Hong Kong apart. This revealed Beijing's weakness and timidity. It undermined the credibility of Deng Xiaoping's historic legacy of "one country two systems." By now Beijing must realize that tear gas cannot maintain "one country, two systems." The correct way is to seek a "meeting of the minds."
As matters stand, Beijing looks both weak and guilty. For example, Beijing invoked the "rule of law." It accused the Occupy Central movement of interfering with the conduct of daily life. But those advocating the "rule of law" used "sham universal suffrage" to violate the law of democracy. In today's Hong Kong, those who advocate "sham universal suffrage" hae tear gas. Those who advocate "genuine universal suffrage" can only occupy the streets. Faced with tear gas. whither any "meeting of the minds?"
In fact, the election of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong by means of genuine universal suffrage under "one country, two systems" was a commitment made to Hong Kong by Deng Xiaoping and three generations of CCP political leaders. It is the only way to ensure a "meeting of the minds" with Hong Kong society. At this juncture, the Beijing authorities should be affirming "genuine universal suffrage." Such an affirmation should been seen as honoring a political commitment made by Deng Xiaoping. It should be seen as the communist regime's test bed for its policy of "Letting some of people experience democracy first." In other words, it should see this as a political achievement. It should do everything in its power to realize it. It should not see it as a political burden, and use tear gas against the public. Beijing has no reason to oppose "genuine universal suffrage" or refuse to give an inch.
Beijing's political resources are abundant. The protestors are disorganized and weak. They face increasing social pressures from anti-Occupy Central forces. Beijing must not be short-sighted. It must resort to force to suppress public discontent, but instead "free up its mind." It must seek solutions from a higher perspective. That is the way to reach a "meeting of the minds"with Hong Kong society, and to resolve the "sham universal suffrage" induced public controversy. If Beijing is confident, and does not have a guilty conscience, it can freely make concessions. These should not be seen purely as concessions to the protesters. They should be seen as a means of enhancing its own political credibiliy, and upholding the reputation of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." From this perspective, there is no need to concern oneself over who made concessions today. This is a rare opportunity for Beijing to adopt a political initiative that can enhance its credibility.
An opportunity has arisen. The Hong Kong government has declared that it will "postpone second phase consultation on political reform," and that "the door is always open to dialogue." Beijing is not about to have the Hong Kong government open the door to dialogue, yet refuse to give an inch. Tanks cleared Tiananmen Square. Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts in Thailand ripped the country apart, as did similar conflicts in Ukraine. By contrast, current developments in Hong Kong offer an opportunity to ease confrontation. Doing so may not be easy. But if Beijing really wishes to ensure a "meeting of the minds" in Hong Kong over one country, two systems, it must first enhance its own political credibility, not merely demand that people disperse without giving an inch.
Why not initiate a meeting of the minds, beginning with Hong Kong?
北京談心靈契合 何妨先從香港做起
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.07 11:07 am
上圖為今年9月28日香港為爭真普選抗議情形。下圖則為1989年5月17日北京天安門廣場上人民阻擋車子前進情形。美聯社
習近平最近談兩岸關係，使用了「心靈契合」這個新語彙；倘若北京心存此念，「心靈契合」何妨先從香港做起？
周日夜間，香港學聯與港府官員進行首場「對話籌備會」；昨天周一上班日，在占中人員「不撤離／開通道」的狀態下，香港大致回復了政府上班及小學以上學校上課的情勢，港府亦未對仍占據街道的群眾清場。
客觀而論，這是港府及抗爭群眾間十分值得肯定的共同成就，也可能是這一波官民對峙覓得出口的關鍵性拐點。若與泰國及烏克蘭的群眾風暴相比，或與天安門事件對照，此次占中風潮經此轉折，倘能出現一個各方大致能夠相互接受的解決方案，則此次香港事件亦不無可能在舉世民主運動中創造出一個新典範。值此風暴中出現曙光之際，我們期望北京、港府及抗爭的港民皆能以創造典範自期，使得此一可能負向發展的事件，能在香港歷史、中國歷史上展現重大的正面意義。
責任主要在中南海，方法則是必須追求北京與港人的「心靈契合」。簡單一句話，如學聯所說：「政治問題政治解決，政府商討及讓步是唯一辦法，不能只教市民撤走及解散，自己則寸步不讓。」當胡椒噴霧及催淚彈不能解決問題時，北京必須另覓能與港人「心靈契合」的辦法，那就是不能寸步不讓。
如今回顧，「假普選」根本是出自官僚慣性思維的「莫須有的議題」。為什麼北京堅持「普選」須經「篩選」？又為什麼認為若不經「篩選」，就一定會選出「不愛國／不愛港」之人？以香港與大陸的依存關係，北京因何沒有自信能以「絕對多數制」來贏得香港的「真普選」？何況，難道永遠要用催淚彈及警棍來維持「假普選」？在這一波占中風潮中，北京不啻是在全力維護這個已成為撕裂香港之凶器的「莫須有的假普選」。這不但顯露了北京的理屈與心虛，更不啻嚴重地毀傷了鄧小平所創「一國兩制」的歷史聲譽。北京如今應當已悟出一個道理，那就是：在「一國兩制」中，催淚彈不可恃，追求「心靈契合」始是正辦。
處此情勢，北京是理屈與心虛的。例如：北京談的「法治」，是占中妨害了市民生活；但占中者主張的「法治」，則是「假普選」根本違反了民主政治的「法後之法」。今日香港，是主張「假普選」者擁有催淚彈，但主張「真普選」者只能占據街道、面對催淚彈。如此，「心靈契合」將從何談起？
其實，在香港舉行「特首及立法會議員真普選」，是「一國兩制」的應然及必然歸趨。這當視為鄧小平以降中共三代領導班子的政治承諾，更是維繫香港社會「心靈契合」的不二路徑。此際，北京當局應將趨近「真普選」，視為兌現鄧小平政治承諾的共同責任，亦視為中共政權一方「讓一部分人先民主起來」的政治實驗田；也就是說，應當視此為政治的昇華與成就而盡力加以完成，不應視之為政治負荷而欲以催淚彈來對抗民意。然則，北京即無理由在「真普選」上「寸步不讓」。
在當前情勢中，北京的政治資源豐足，而抗爭者的組織性及持久性較弱，且又逐漸面對反占中的社會壓力；北京不應以短視眼光操作，想要以力壓人，而應「解放思想」，向久遠及高大處來找尋解決方案，也就是真正從重建香港社會「心靈契合」處，來解決「假普選」引發的民意爭議。北京若有自信，若不心虛，自有「讓步」的空間；這當然不應視為只是對抗爭者的讓步，更應視為北京當局藉此提升了自己的政治境界，也保全了鄧小平「一國兩制」的聲譽。準此，也就無須用「看誰讓步」的角度來看今日情勢，因為這正是中共主動創造政治昇華與成就的難得機遇。
契機似已出現。港府宣示「推遲第二階段政改諮詢」，且聲稱「對話大門永遠開著」；北京不會讓港府開著「對話大門」，卻「寸步不讓」吧？與天安門坦克車清場、泰國紅黃對抗及烏克蘭撕裂國家對比，此次香港風潮能走到今日出現緩解契機的地步，誠屬不易；北京若真想在香港實施「心靈契合」的「一國兩制」，首須提升自己的政治境界，不能「只教市民解散，自己寸步不讓」。
心靈契合，何妨先從香港做起？
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Movement, or Revolution? Big Power Wrangling behind Occupy Central
Movement, or Revolution? Big Power Wrangling behind Occupy Central
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 63, 2014
Executive Summary: The Hong Kong Occupy Central movement has been internationalized. It has led to a struggle between Mainland China and Russia on the one side, and the United States and Britain on the other. It will make human rights the chief bone of contention during the APEC Obama/Xi meeting. It is making waves all across the pond. The CCP is particularly wary of interference by 'foreign forces.' To expect it to continue allowing the protesters to occupy the streets of Hong Kong, is wishful thinking.
Full Text Below:
The Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong has been going on for over one week. Public demonstrations have recently turned into factional strife between Occupy Central and Anti-Occupy Central elements. Student demands for "genuine universal suffrage" have morphed into "opposition to China." Fueled by the foreign media, a pro-democracy movement has turned into a political revolution.
The Hong Kong Government's attitude has changed in response to this development. Leung Chun-ying was originally playing a waiting game. This weekend however, he issued an ultimatum. He threatened to clear the protest grounds completely before work resumes on Monday. The CCP has also taken a tougher line. Originally it resolved to safeguard Hong Kong's prosperity and the resolution reached by the NPC. Now it talks of upholding the rule of law and attempts to foment a color revolution on Mainland China. Clearly foreign intervention could become a reason or excuse for the CCP and the Hong Kong Government to take action.
The foreign media has spun the Occupy Central movement as an "Umbrella Revolution." The demonstrators used umbrellas to ward off police tear gas attacks but the umbrella tips are actually pointed at Beijing. The term "revolution" is highly loaded. Hong Kong protesters refer to the campaign as a "take cover/strike out revolution." What they mean, is that the purpose of the protests is not merely to seek cover, but also to strike out. It is not only to overthrow Leung Chun-ying, but also to overthrow the National People's Congress resolution.
Semantic differences have led to political wrangling over the terms "movement" and "revolution." The campaigin was initially merely a demand for "geunine universal suffrage" in the Hong Kong chief executive elections. But the foreign media spun the movement as a "revolution." It made no difference whether it was an "umbrella revolution" or a "take cover/strike out revolution." It was inevitably cast as "anti-China." At the same time, foreign solidarity with the protests provoked suspicions of foreign intervention. This touched a sensitive nerve, and set off alarm bells in Beijing.
In response to accusations of foreign intervention, scholars have launched a signature camaign in Hong Kong, drawing clear lines between themselves and the foreign media. In their view, the Hong Kong student boycott of classes should be referred to as a "movement," and not a "revolution." The students are seeking a democratic society, and have no intention of overthrowing the existing order.
The movement gradually morphed from Occupy Central to Oppose China. Meanwhile, within Hong Kong, Occupy Central and Anti-Occupy Central confrontations began to appear. The Occupy Central movement was dispersed over multiple locations. This seriously impacted traffic and economic activities in Hong Kong. On top of this, the Occupy Central movement was labeled a "revolution." Anti-Occupy Central forces begain to appear. Occupy Central students provoked bloody conflicts, giving the movement a violent image. Fortunately, to avoid Hong Kong being torn by crisis, university and middle school principals have issued a statement. They have appealed to students to disperse as soon as possible. They have stressed dialogue as the best way to resolve the current impasse. Clearly both external and internal forces are at work in Hong Kong.
One thing cannot be denied. When Western countries conflate the "umbrella revolution" with the "color revolutions," they are looking at the demonstrations through rose colored glasses. Let us examine Bejing's attitude under a magnifying glass. The Umbrella Revolution should be regarded as a sign of "peaceful evolution" within China. For example, the United States, avoids lightly taking stands on cross-Strait issues. But it openly took sides on the demonstrations in Hong Kong. It claimed that universal suffrage was a right in accordance with the Hong Kong People's "Basic Law." It hoped that Hong Kong could maintain its open system. It apparently equated support for the high school students with support for the Dalai Lama.
Russia has seldom concerned itself with East Asia. This time however, it issued an unprecedented statement. It openly sided with the Beijing authorities. It named the United States and Britain as behind the scenes conspirators. Moscow's purpose was apparently to use the movement to settle old debts from the Ukraine "orange revolution" and to use the opportunity to repudiate it.
Beijing swiftly drew a line in the sand in response to the Hong Kong demonstrations. It clearly indicated that the Hong Kong issue is an internal affair. Outside forces have no right to interfere. It hopes the United States will exercise caution, and not issue the wrong signals. A pro-democracy movement has apparently become an arena for great power political struggle.
Hong Kong has long maintained a tradition of liberality and openness. This has given the United States an opening by which to inject itself into the Chinese mainland's internal affairs. Academics in the United States are equating the movement with the May Fourth Movement. That is why the U.S. government loudly trumpeted its support for Hong Kong for three straight days. Beijing is convinced that the U.S. government wants to use Hong Kong as a foward base to strengthen democracy and to contain China. This is why the Beijing leaders have taken such a hard line on the demonstrations, and are unwilling to give an inch.
The Hong Kong Occupy Central movement has been internationalized. It has led to a struggle between Mainland China and Russia on the one side, and the United States and Britain on the other. It will make human rights the chief bone of contention during the APEC Obama/Xi meeting. It is making waves all across the pond. The CCP is particularly wary of interference by 'foreign forces.' To expect it to continue allowing the protesters to occupy the streets of Hong Kong, is wishful thinking.
運動vs.革命：香港占中背後的大國角力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.06 02:20 am
香港占中運動已超過一周。近日，民眾示威演變成「占中」與「反占中」兩派的衝突，學生的訴求也從爭取「真普選」轉為「反中」；在外國媒體的推波助瀾下，一場民主運動幾乎被形容成一場政治革命。
隨著這樣的情勢發展，港府的態度也有所不同。梁振英先前持「以拖待變」策略，到周末卻發出強硬的最後通牒，揚言要在星期一上班前完成「清場」。中共的態度更日漸強硬，從稍早聲稱堅決維護香港繁榮、堅定維護全國人大的決議，到近日強調堅持維護香港的法治，並指責有人想在大陸內地製造「顏色革命」是白日作夢。可見，所謂「外國勢力介入」的因素，可能成為中共和港府對群眾採取行動的基調或藉口。
外國媒體把這次占中運動稱為「雨傘革命」，形容示威者以雨傘來遮抵警方催淚彈的攻擊，傘尖其實是直指北京，但「革命」一詞尤顯沉重。香港示威者則把這場運動稱為「遮打革命」，意指抗爭的目的不只在「遮」，還要「打」，不但要打倒梁振英，也要推翻中共「人大」的決議。
也正由於用詞與認知不同，因而形成「運動」和「革命」的政治角力，原本港人旨在爭取特首的「真普選」運動，被國際媒體冠上「革命」的帽子後，不論是「雨傘革命」或「遮打革命」，都難免被抹上「反中」色彩。同時，因為外國人民的聲援，也引發「外國勢力介入」之說，挑動了中國的敏感神經，也引起北京的戒懼。
針對「外國勢力介入」之說，目前許多香港學者已經展開連署，與外國媒體的報導畫清界線。他們認為，這次香港學生罷課占中活動，應稱為「運動」，不該被視為「革命」，因為學生推動的是爭民主的社會運動，沒有推翻現有政權之意。
也就在這場運動逐漸從「占中」轉為「反中」之際，香港內部也開始出現「占中」與「反占中」的對抗。由於占中據點分散多處，讓香港的交通及經濟活動受到相當大的影響，再加上占中運動被貼上「革命」的標籤，香港社會內部一股「反占中」的勢力開始出現，並與占中學生爆發數波肢體流血衝突，讓運動染上暴力色彩。所幸，為避免香港陷入被撕裂的危機，香港各大學及中學校長紛紛發表聲明，呼籲學生儘快撤離現場，並強調「對話」是解決當前僵局的最佳方式。可見，外部的推力及內部的阻力正在香港拉鋸。
不可諱言，當西方國家把「雨傘革命」與「顏色革命」畫上等號，就註定他們會以有色眼鏡來看待這次示威，以放大鏡來檢視北京政權的態度，同時也將雨傘革命視為中國內部進行「和平演變」的前哨站。舉例而言，在兩岸問題上不輕易表態的美國，竟罕見地對香港示威運動選邊站，不但宣稱香港人民根據《基本法》擁有普選的權利，同時希望香港能持續維持開放的體制。這種作法，似把支持占中學生與支持達賴、熱比婭畫上了等號。
在另外一頭，從不關心東亞問題的俄羅斯，這回也破天荒地發表聲明。它不但鮮明地選擇站在中共政權這一邊，還指稱這次占中活動是美英在背後策畫的「陰謀」。莫斯科的目的，似乎想藉這次占中運動，來清算烏克蘭「橙色革命」的舊帳，並趁機否定它。
北京方面，則迅速為這次香港示威活動畫下了紅線。中共直接表明：香港問題是「內政」，外部勢力無權干涉，同時希望美方謹言慎行，不要對外釋放錯誤的訊息。一場爭取民主的活動，儼然已成為大國政治角力的場域。
香港一向具有自由化與開放的傳統，這讓美國找到向中國大陸內部推進的缺口。這次，有美國學者將占中運動與「五四運動」畫上等號，這也是美國政府連續三天高調支持香港占中的主因。此外，北京則認為，美國政府想利用香港作為據點，來強化對中國的民主圍堵，這也是北京領導人對這次示威格外強硬、且寸步不讓的原因。
這次香港占中運動的國際化，不但形成中俄及美英之間的相互角力，也將使人權議題成為ＡＰＥＣ歐習會爭辯的主調，它吹皺了一池春水。在中共格外戒慎「外國勢力」介入的心理下，要期待它放任示威者持續占領香港街頭，恐怕是奢望。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 63, 2014
Executive Summary: The Hong Kong Occupy Central movement has been internationalized. It has led to a struggle between Mainland China and Russia on the one side, and the United States and Britain on the other. It will make human rights the chief bone of contention during the APEC Obama/Xi meeting. It is making waves all across the pond. The CCP is particularly wary of interference by 'foreign forces.' To expect it to continue allowing the protesters to occupy the streets of Hong Kong, is wishful thinking.
Full Text Below:
The Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong has been going on for over one week. Public demonstrations have recently turned into factional strife between Occupy Central and Anti-Occupy Central elements. Student demands for "genuine universal suffrage" have morphed into "opposition to China." Fueled by the foreign media, a pro-democracy movement has turned into a political revolution.
The Hong Kong Government's attitude has changed in response to this development. Leung Chun-ying was originally playing a waiting game. This weekend however, he issued an ultimatum. He threatened to clear the protest grounds completely before work resumes on Monday. The CCP has also taken a tougher line. Originally it resolved to safeguard Hong Kong's prosperity and the resolution reached by the NPC. Now it talks of upholding the rule of law and attempts to foment a color revolution on Mainland China. Clearly foreign intervention could become a reason or excuse for the CCP and the Hong Kong Government to take action.
The foreign media has spun the Occupy Central movement as an "Umbrella Revolution." The demonstrators used umbrellas to ward off police tear gas attacks but the umbrella tips are actually pointed at Beijing. The term "revolution" is highly loaded. Hong Kong protesters refer to the campaign as a "take cover/strike out revolution." What they mean, is that the purpose of the protests is not merely to seek cover, but also to strike out. It is not only to overthrow Leung Chun-ying, but also to overthrow the National People's Congress resolution.
Semantic differences have led to political wrangling over the terms "movement" and "revolution." The campaigin was initially merely a demand for "geunine universal suffrage" in the Hong Kong chief executive elections. But the foreign media spun the movement as a "revolution." It made no difference whether it was an "umbrella revolution" or a "take cover/strike out revolution." It was inevitably cast as "anti-China." At the same time, foreign solidarity with the protests provoked suspicions of foreign intervention. This touched a sensitive nerve, and set off alarm bells in Beijing.
In response to accusations of foreign intervention, scholars have launched a signature camaign in Hong Kong, drawing clear lines between themselves and the foreign media. In their view, the Hong Kong student boycott of classes should be referred to as a "movement," and not a "revolution." The students are seeking a democratic society, and have no intention of overthrowing the existing order.
The movement gradually morphed from Occupy Central to Oppose China. Meanwhile, within Hong Kong, Occupy Central and Anti-Occupy Central confrontations began to appear. The Occupy Central movement was dispersed over multiple locations. This seriously impacted traffic and economic activities in Hong Kong. On top of this, the Occupy Central movement was labeled a "revolution." Anti-Occupy Central forces begain to appear. Occupy Central students provoked bloody conflicts, giving the movement a violent image. Fortunately, to avoid Hong Kong being torn by crisis, university and middle school principals have issued a statement. They have appealed to students to disperse as soon as possible. They have stressed dialogue as the best way to resolve the current impasse. Clearly both external and internal forces are at work in Hong Kong.
One thing cannot be denied. When Western countries conflate the "umbrella revolution" with the "color revolutions," they are looking at the demonstrations through rose colored glasses. Let us examine Bejing's attitude under a magnifying glass. The Umbrella Revolution should be regarded as a sign of "peaceful evolution" within China. For example, the United States, avoids lightly taking stands on cross-Strait issues. But it openly took sides on the demonstrations in Hong Kong. It claimed that universal suffrage was a right in accordance with the Hong Kong People's "Basic Law." It hoped that Hong Kong could maintain its open system. It apparently equated support for the high school students with support for the Dalai Lama.
Russia has seldom concerned itself with East Asia. This time however, it issued an unprecedented statement. It openly sided with the Beijing authorities. It named the United States and Britain as behind the scenes conspirators. Moscow's purpose was apparently to use the movement to settle old debts from the Ukraine "orange revolution" and to use the opportunity to repudiate it.
Beijing swiftly drew a line in the sand in response to the Hong Kong demonstrations. It clearly indicated that the Hong Kong issue is an internal affair. Outside forces have no right to interfere. It hopes the United States will exercise caution, and not issue the wrong signals. A pro-democracy movement has apparently become an arena for great power political struggle.
Hong Kong has long maintained a tradition of liberality and openness. This has given the United States an opening by which to inject itself into the Chinese mainland's internal affairs. Academics in the United States are equating the movement with the May Fourth Movement. That is why the U.S. government loudly trumpeted its support for Hong Kong for three straight days. Beijing is convinced that the U.S. government wants to use Hong Kong as a foward base to strengthen democracy and to contain China. This is why the Beijing leaders have taken such a hard line on the demonstrations, and are unwilling to give an inch.
The Hong Kong Occupy Central movement has been internationalized. It has led to a struggle between Mainland China and Russia on the one side, and the United States and Britain on the other. It will make human rights the chief bone of contention during the APEC Obama/Xi meeting. It is making waves all across the pond. The CCP is particularly wary of interference by 'foreign forces.' To expect it to continue allowing the protesters to occupy the streets of Hong Kong, is wishful thinking.
運動vs.革命：香港占中背後的大國角力
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.10.06 02:20 am
香港占中運動已超過一周。近日，民眾示威演變成「占中」與「反占中」兩派的衝突，學生的訴求也從爭取「真普選」轉為「反中」；在外國媒體的推波助瀾下，一場民主運動幾乎被形容成一場政治革命。
隨著這樣的情勢發展，港府的態度也有所不同。梁振英先前持「以拖待變」策略，到周末卻發出強硬的最後通牒，揚言要在星期一上班前完成「清場」。中共的態度更日漸強硬，從稍早聲稱堅決維護香港繁榮、堅定維護全國人大的決議，到近日強調堅持維護香港的法治，並指責有人想在大陸內地製造「顏色革命」是白日作夢。可見，所謂「外國勢力介入」的因素，可能成為中共和港府對群眾採取行動的基調或藉口。
外國媒體把這次占中運動稱為「雨傘革命」，形容示威者以雨傘來遮抵警方催淚彈的攻擊，傘尖其實是直指北京，但「革命」一詞尤顯沉重。香港示威者則把這場運動稱為「遮打革命」，意指抗爭的目的不只在「遮」，還要「打」，不但要打倒梁振英，也要推翻中共「人大」的決議。
也正由於用詞與認知不同，因而形成「運動」和「革命」的政治角力，原本港人旨在爭取特首的「真普選」運動，被國際媒體冠上「革命」的帽子後，不論是「雨傘革命」或「遮打革命」，都難免被抹上「反中」色彩。同時，因為外國人民的聲援，也引發「外國勢力介入」之說，挑動了中國的敏感神經，也引起北京的戒懼。
針對「外國勢力介入」之說，目前許多香港學者已經展開連署，與外國媒體的報導畫清界線。他們認為，這次香港學生罷課占中活動，應稱為「運動」，不該被視為「革命」，因為學生推動的是爭民主的社會運動，沒有推翻現有政權之意。
也就在這場運動逐漸從「占中」轉為「反中」之際，香港內部也開始出現「占中」與「反占中」的對抗。由於占中據點分散多處，讓香港的交通及經濟活動受到相當大的影響，再加上占中運動被貼上「革命」的標籤，香港社會內部一股「反占中」的勢力開始出現，並與占中學生爆發數波肢體流血衝突，讓運動染上暴力色彩。所幸，為避免香港陷入被撕裂的危機，香港各大學及中學校長紛紛發表聲明，呼籲學生儘快撤離現場，並強調「對話」是解決當前僵局的最佳方式。可見，外部的推力及內部的阻力正在香港拉鋸。
不可諱言，當西方國家把「雨傘革命」與「顏色革命」畫上等號，就註定他們會以有色眼鏡來看待這次示威，以放大鏡來檢視北京政權的態度，同時也將雨傘革命視為中國內部進行「和平演變」的前哨站。舉例而言，在兩岸問題上不輕易表態的美國，竟罕見地對香港示威運動選邊站，不但宣稱香港人民根據《基本法》擁有普選的權利，同時希望香港能持續維持開放的體制。這種作法，似把支持占中學生與支持達賴、熱比婭畫上了等號。
在另外一頭，從不關心東亞問題的俄羅斯，這回也破天荒地發表聲明。它不但鮮明地選擇站在中共政權這一邊，還指稱這次占中活動是美英在背後策畫的「陰謀」。莫斯科的目的，似乎想藉這次占中運動，來清算烏克蘭「橙色革命」的舊帳，並趁機否定它。
北京方面，則迅速為這次香港示威活動畫下了紅線。中共直接表明：香港問題是「內政」，外部勢力無權干涉，同時希望美方謹言慎行，不要對外釋放錯誤的訊息。一場爭取民主的活動，儼然已成為大國政治角力的場域。
香港一向具有自由化與開放的傳統，這讓美國找到向中國大陸內部推進的缺口。這次，有美國學者將占中運動與「五四運動」畫上等號，這也是美國政府連續三天高調支持香港占中的主因。此外，北京則認為，美國政府想利用香港作為據點，來強化對中國的民主圍堵，這也是北京領導人對這次示威格外強硬、且寸步不讓的原因。
這次香港占中運動的國際化，不但形成中俄及美英之間的相互角力，也將使人權議題成為ＡＰＥＣ歐習會爭辯的主調，它吹皺了一池春水。在中共格外戒慎「外國勢力」介入的心理下，要期待它放任示威者持續占領香港街頭，恐怕是奢望。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)