New Three Kingdoms Pales Next to Old
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2015
Executive Summary: Less than five months remain before the presidential election. The KMT's
Hung Hsiu-chu, the DPP's Tsai Ing-wen, and the PFP's James Soong,
constitute a "triumvirate" reminiscent of the 2000 presidential
election. Back then, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian squared
off against each other. This "New Three Kingdoms" bears a certain
resemblance to the "Old Three Kingdoms". But this time the candidates
differ. The political environment differs. The voters' options differ.
It would be difficult to say that politics on Taiwan has progressed. On
the contrary, it would be easy to conclude that it has regressed.
Full Text Below:
Less than five months remain before the presidential election. The KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu, the DPP's Tsai Ing-wen, and the PFP's James Soong, constitute a "triumvirate" reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election. Back then, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian squared off against each other. This "New Three Kingdoms" bears a certain resemblance to the "Old Three Kingdoms". But this time the candidates differ. The political environment differs. The voters' options differ. It would be difficult to say that politics on Taiwan has progressed. On the contrary, it would be easy to conclude that it has regressed.
The three major candidates during the 2000 presidential election were the KMT's Lien Chan, the DPP's Chen Shui-bian, and KMT apostate James Soong. Sixteen years later, public feelings toward these three has dramatically changed. But given the political and social climate at the time, these three were the "men of the hour". Lien Chan was outgoing President Lee Teng-hui's designated successor. HIs qualifications and character were exceptional. Chen Shui-bian was the shining star of the DPP, a real go-getter, and the first directly elected mayor of the nation's capital. James Soong lost the political struggle within the KMT, and lacked the support of any political party. But his halo as former Taiwan Provincial governor remained bright, and made him a highly attractive candidate.
Because the three candidates had different backgrounds and character traits, the campaign could be considered classic. The three camps mustered all their forces to win voter support. The three camps were diametrically opposed in their campaign literature, organizational structure, and policy proposals. Every attack drew blood. Taiwan had only recently emerged from authoritarianism. The competition was not entirely fair. Emotions ran high. People found themselves at loggerheads with each other. The result was a painful blue camp schism. But democratic participation during the 2000 presidential election was key to Taiwan's democratic politics, and laid the foundation for Taiwan's party politics.
Yet 16 years later, the three candidates currently in the running, fail to inspire the same enthusiasm among the electorate back then. Put bluntly, it would be hard to describe any of the "New Three Kingdoms" candidates as a "man (or woman) of the hour", at least when compared with those of the "Old Three Kingdoms". That includes four time presidential candidate James Soong, now a mere shadow of his former self. For the voters, the campaign has been a disappointment. For the political system, the campaign reveals how much democracy has regressed.
First take front-runner Tsai Ing-wen. Chen Shui-bian's ability to excite the masses was extraordinary. Tsai Ing-wen falls far short in that department. Her virtues are her composure and ability to strategize. Tsai Ing-wen's problem is her peculiar ambiguity. She never makes anything clear. She is never able to make anything clear. She creates for herself a gray area that leaves the public in the dark. After losing four years ago, she resolved to take her ambiguity to the extreme. The DPP is a rough and tumble political party. As it carries Tsai Ing-wen aloft in a sedan chair, the incongruity borders on hypocrisy.
Now take the KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu. She won the KMT nomination only because the "A List" candidates were afraid to do battle. Her political qualifications are solid. But she lacks experience in command. She can only consolidate her core support. She lacks the ability to broaden her appeal. She pales next to Lien Chan, who enjoyed the backing of the party machine. James Soong meanwhile, has experienced over a decade of ups and downs. He has flip-flopped endlessly. His halo as governor long ago lost its lustre. All that remains is his political ambition, his obstinate refusal to admit defeat. Can he really transcend blue and green? Can he really spearhead a "grand coalition"? It all sounds great. But from the perspective of outsiders, Soong is merely letting his selfish drive for power undermine his political responsibilities.
The "New Three Kingdoms" pales next to the "Old Three Kingdoms". Tsai Ing-wen in 2016 pales next to Chen Shui-bian in 2000. Hung Hsiu-chu in 2016 pales next to Lien Chan in 2000. James Soong in 2016 pales next to James Soong in 2000. That is the tragedy of this election. The times may be progressing, but Taiwan's democracy is regressing.
Sixteen years have elapsed. So why have the voters' options become increasingly limited? One reason is the rapid depletion of intellectual elites. During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power, the DPP's middle-aged leadership was virtually decimated. No one close to Chen was spared. As a result, two consecutive DPP presidential candidates had little connection to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen's political qualifications were meager. A similar situation prevailed within the KMT. During Ma Ying-jeou's eight years in office, the party failed to cultivate a new generation of leaders. Cabinet ministers were recruited with excessive reliance on academic credentials. The party lost cohesion and imploded.
The rise of populism has made politics risky business. Political candidates must endure examination under a microscope. Their poiicy proposals, policy implementation, even their family members must endure irrational attacks. Many of those who contemplate a career in politics are deterred by irrational criticism. The harsh political environment naturally makes it difficult to attract qualified candidates.
Who will win the 2016 general election? A better question might be "Why has Taiwan's democracy regressed?"
「新三國」不如「舊三國」，何以致之？
2015-08-19聯合報
剩下不到五個月的總統大選，國民黨洪
秀柱、民進黨蔡英文和親民黨宋楚瑜的「三足鼎立」，讓人想起兩千年總統大選的連宋陳「三強爭霸」。但除了「新三國」與「舊三國」的態勢類似，從候選人的個
人條件、民主環境的實況、和選民擁有的選擇看，卻很難讓人感到台灣的政治進步了，反而覺得是不進反退。
兩千年總統大選的
三個主要候選人，分別是國民黨的連戰、民進黨的陳水扁和從國民黨脫黨的宋楚瑜。事隔十六年之後回看，儘管民眾對這三個人的評價皆已大不相同，然而，從當時
的政治和社會氛圍來看，這三人皆堪稱一時之選。連戰是即將卸任的總統李登輝之欽定接班人，政治資歷、學養俱佳；陳水扁是民進黨閃亮的政治明星，敢衝敢做，
曾任首任直選的首都市長。至於宋楚瑜，雖在國民黨內的政治鬥爭落敗而無政黨支持，卻因省長光環，儼為當時極具民意號召力的一方之雄。
由
於三位候選人不同的背景與特質，選戰過程也堪稱經典。三個陣營卯足全力，爭取選民認同，不管是文宣戰、組織戰或政策戰，都是針鋒相對、刀刀見血。儘管當時
政治環境距離台灣脫離威權時代不久，有些競爭未盡公平，激情的演出也引發社會的對立，並導致藍營的慘痛分裂；但從民主參與的角度看，二○○○年的總統大
選，確實是台灣邁入民主政治的關鍵一役，也奠立了台灣政黨政治的基礎。
但是，十六年過去了，目前檯面上的三個候選人，卻
已經無法再激起選民當年的熱情。更直白地說，當下「新三國」的候選人，似皆難稱是一時之選；至少，與當年「舊三國」的候選人對比──包括四度參選的宋楚瑜
比起當年的他自己，都遜色不少。這點，從選民的角度看，確實令人失望；從政治的角度看，則顯示了民主的退化。
先談目前民
調居於領先的蔡英文。比起陳水扁過人的煽動能力，蔡英文的政治魅力自然遠不如他；她的特質是相對冷靜，擅長運籌帷幄。問題在，蔡英文有一種奇特的曖昧性，
凡事「不說清楚，也說不清楚」，使自己保持在安全的模糊地帶，讓民眾難以捉摸。歷經四年前的敗選，她這次更將模糊的特質發揮到極致。深具草莽性格的民進
黨，抬著蔡英文的轎子，其實極不協調，也顯表裡不一。
再看國民黨的洪秀柱。她在國民黨的「Ａ咖」怯戰的情況下獲得提名，
儘管政治資歷頗深，卻缺乏指揮大局的閱歷，只能固守基本盤，缺乏拓展局面的能力；與當年擁有黨機器力挺的連戰，難以相比。至於宋楚瑜，十多年來在政壇的起
起伏伏、左傾右倒，當年的「省長光環」早已剝落殆盡，只剩他自己不甘罷休的政治野心。就算他把「超越藍綠」、「大聯合政府」說得煞有介事，在外界看來，全
都抵不過他因個人權力野心而破壞政局應負的責任。
這就是所謂的「新三國」不如「舊三國」：二○一六的蔡英文不如二○○○的陳水扁，二○一六的洪秀柱不如二○○○的連戰，二○一六的宋楚瑜不如二○○○的宋楚瑜。這也是這次選舉的悲哀：時代在進步，台灣的民主卻在倒退。
十
六年時光流轉，為何台灣選民的選擇卻越來越無奈？原因之一，是政治菁英的快速耗損。陳水扁的八年執政，讓民進黨中生代菁英幾乎毀於一旦，所有與扁關係密切
者幾乎皆難倖免。也因此，兩次代表民進黨參選總統者，是由與民進黨關係不深、政治資歷色彩較淺的蔡英文出馬。類似情況也發生在國民黨，馬英九總統的八年執
政，沒培養出幾位新一代的黨內菁英，而閣員晉用過度倚重學界的結果，更造成黨內向心力的潰散，四分五裂。
其次，是民粹政治的風行，使得政治被視為畏途。政治人物不僅必須受到鋪天蓋地的檢驗，政治主張、政策推行、乃至家人都必須面對非理性的攻擊；不少有志以政治為志業者，都因恐懼遭到無謂攻訐而卻步。政治環境惡劣至此，當然也就很難吸引真正的社會菁英投入。
二○一六大選走至現在，除關心誰輸誰贏，也該深刻檢討台灣的民主發展為何走向了倒退的路。
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Monday, August 17, 2015
US is Key to Spectre of East Asian War
US is Key to Spectre of East Asian War
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2015
Executive Summary:Japanese Prime Minister Abe addressed the Japanese Diet on the 70th anniversary of World War II. He spoke of reflecting upon history. But he failed to acknowledge Japanese militarist responsibility for launching a war of aggression. Nor did he offer a sincere apology to its victims. He has yet to personally visit the Yakasuni Shrine. But as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, he has underwritten the costs of recent visits. Three members of his cabinet visited the shrine on August 15, on the euphemistically named "anniversary of end of the war". Clearly the Abe government and the Liberal Democratic Party have yet to genuinely reflect on Japan's aggression during World War II. Clearly they refuse to cut the party's historic links with Japanese militarism.
Full Text Below:
Japanese Prime Minister Abe addressed the Japanese Diet on the 70th anniversary of World War II. He spoke of reflecting upon history. But he failed to acknowledge Japanese militarist responsibility for launching a war of aggression. Nor did he offer a sincere apology to its victims. He has yet to personally visit the Yakasuni Shrine. But as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, he has underwritten the costs of recent visits. Three members of his cabinet visited the shrine on August 15, on the euphemistically named "anniversary of end of the war". Clearly the Abe government and the Liberal Democratic Party have yet to genuinely reflect on Japan's aggression during World War II. Clearly they refuse to cut the party's historic links with Japanese militarism.
Over the past few years, the Abe government has flagrantly disregarded the peace constitution. It has ignored mainstream public opposition. It used the Liberal Democratic Party's majority in both houses of the Diet to ram through a "security bill" that meshes with the United States' Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy. This has raised tensions between Mainland China, the United States, and Japan. This has forced Asian countries to choose sides or even take part in an arms race. This is not just detrimental to Asian economic development, it even brings back the specter of war.
The underlying cause is US strategic intentions in Asia, and its impact on Abe's attitude. The United States is deliberately inciting confrontation between Mainland China and Japan in order to profit from their losses. Asian countries have yet to hear Abe offer a sincere apology. Relations between Japan and South Korea will continue to deteriorate and become a lose-lose proposition. If the United States genuinely wants Asia to enjoy the dividends of peace, it should encourage Abe to offer a sincere apology for World War II aggression and reject militarism. Japan should emulate Germany, which had the courage to repent and has been forgiven by the countries it victimized. Taiwan, Mainland China, Japan, and South Korea must return to the path of peace. Problems must be solved by those who created them. Abe's address had an impact on war and peace in Asia. But the one who truly sets the tone is the United States.
The US is currently on the brink of fiscal paralysis. Mainland China and Japan, as America's biggest creditors, occupy key positions in Asia's new economic order. Three way cooperation between Mainland China, the United States, and Japan, is essential. The political and economic scene in Asia entails new rules of the game. These will enable countries to become part of the new Asian order, and avoid zero-sum games. US cooperation with Mainland China and Japan is the basis of globalization and the key to a stable international order.
The US receives important trade and security benefits from Asia. It promotes American values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights. If it wants to continue doing so, it must make comprehensive policy plans, including bolstering its own financial structure and market competitiveness. Its main goal must be to maintain stability and to combat terrorism in the Asian-Pacific region.
The major Asian countries must believe the United States has the economic and military wherewithal to ensure constructive and cooperative Sino-Japanese relations. A US in decline will evoke Mainland Chinese and Japanese contempt for the United States. It will encourage them to adopt hard line stances. If Americans are unhappy with their international status, they will be inclined to sow discord between Mainland China and Japan, and resort to deceit to incite unease and anxiety in Asia.
Therefore we hope the United States will increase its strength, accept the rise of Mainland China, accept its lost leadership status, and cultivate peaceful relations with Mainland China. The United States should encourage Japan to become a normal nation. Japan must clearly apologize for its acts of aggression during World War II, and repudiate Japanese militarism. Only then can it regain the trust of its Asian neighbors. Japan can then become a strategic buffer, and promote a win/win/win scenario between Mainland China, the US, and Japan, as well as between Mainland China, Japan, and Taiwan. The US can then cease using cross-Strait relations and the Sino-Japanese conflict to reap strategic advantage.
Mainland China, the United States, and Japan are Taiwan's most important economic, trade, and security partners. Healthy coopetition among the United States, Mainland China, and Japan is beneficial to Taiwan. If military conflict erupts among them, Taiwan cannot avoid being dragged in. The public on Taiwan seeks continued cross-Strait peace. Peace is a necessary condition for stability and prosperity. Taiwan wants Mainland China, the United States, and Japan, to create a win/win/win scenario for Asia. Prime Minister Abe said Taiwan is an important partner. As a friend of Japan, we encourage Japan to face the facts of history, offer sincere repentance, obtain forgiveness from its Asian neighbors, and courageously tread the path of peace in Asia.
The Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement shows that sovereignty disputes can be settled peacefully and the threat of conflict can be averted, leading to a win-win situation. Taiwan will not be satisfied merely to obtain fishing rights. It will continue to promote cooperation between the US and Japan. The "East China Sea peace initiative" and "South China Sea Peace Initiative" can facilitate peace and stability in Asia.
Will this road map for peace in Asia work? That depends on the United States and its attitude toward war and peace in East Asia. Will it persuade the Abe government to apologize to its Asian neighbors for World War II aggression, and repudiate Japanese militarism? Only that can dispel the specter of war, and ensure a bright future for Asia.
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 18, 2015
Executive Summary:Japanese Prime Minister Abe addressed the Japanese Diet on the 70th anniversary of World War II. He spoke of reflecting upon history. But he failed to acknowledge Japanese militarist responsibility for launching a war of aggression. Nor did he offer a sincere apology to its victims. He has yet to personally visit the Yakasuni Shrine. But as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, he has underwritten the costs of recent visits. Three members of his cabinet visited the shrine on August 15, on the euphemistically named "anniversary of end of the war". Clearly the Abe government and the Liberal Democratic Party have yet to genuinely reflect on Japan's aggression during World War II. Clearly they refuse to cut the party's historic links with Japanese militarism.
Full Text Below:
Japanese Prime Minister Abe addressed the Japanese Diet on the 70th anniversary of World War II. He spoke of reflecting upon history. But he failed to acknowledge Japanese militarist responsibility for launching a war of aggression. Nor did he offer a sincere apology to its victims. He has yet to personally visit the Yakasuni Shrine. But as leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, he has underwritten the costs of recent visits. Three members of his cabinet visited the shrine on August 15, on the euphemistically named "anniversary of end of the war". Clearly the Abe government and the Liberal Democratic Party have yet to genuinely reflect on Japan's aggression during World War II. Clearly they refuse to cut the party's historic links with Japanese militarism.
Over the past few years, the Abe government has flagrantly disregarded the peace constitution. It has ignored mainstream public opposition. It used the Liberal Democratic Party's majority in both houses of the Diet to ram through a "security bill" that meshes with the United States' Asian-Pacific rebalancing strategy. This has raised tensions between Mainland China, the United States, and Japan. This has forced Asian countries to choose sides or even take part in an arms race. This is not just detrimental to Asian economic development, it even brings back the specter of war.
The underlying cause is US strategic intentions in Asia, and its impact on Abe's attitude. The United States is deliberately inciting confrontation between Mainland China and Japan in order to profit from their losses. Asian countries have yet to hear Abe offer a sincere apology. Relations between Japan and South Korea will continue to deteriorate and become a lose-lose proposition. If the United States genuinely wants Asia to enjoy the dividends of peace, it should encourage Abe to offer a sincere apology for World War II aggression and reject militarism. Japan should emulate Germany, which had the courage to repent and has been forgiven by the countries it victimized. Taiwan, Mainland China, Japan, and South Korea must return to the path of peace. Problems must be solved by those who created them. Abe's address had an impact on war and peace in Asia. But the one who truly sets the tone is the United States.
The US is currently on the brink of fiscal paralysis. Mainland China and Japan, as America's biggest creditors, occupy key positions in Asia's new economic order. Three way cooperation between Mainland China, the United States, and Japan, is essential. The political and economic scene in Asia entails new rules of the game. These will enable countries to become part of the new Asian order, and avoid zero-sum games. US cooperation with Mainland China and Japan is the basis of globalization and the key to a stable international order.
The US receives important trade and security benefits from Asia. It promotes American values such as freedom, democracy, and human rights. If it wants to continue doing so, it must make comprehensive policy plans, including bolstering its own financial structure and market competitiveness. Its main goal must be to maintain stability and to combat terrorism in the Asian-Pacific region.
The major Asian countries must believe the United States has the economic and military wherewithal to ensure constructive and cooperative Sino-Japanese relations. A US in decline will evoke Mainland Chinese and Japanese contempt for the United States. It will encourage them to adopt hard line stances. If Americans are unhappy with their international status, they will be inclined to sow discord between Mainland China and Japan, and resort to deceit to incite unease and anxiety in Asia.
Therefore we hope the United States will increase its strength, accept the rise of Mainland China, accept its lost leadership status, and cultivate peaceful relations with Mainland China. The United States should encourage Japan to become a normal nation. Japan must clearly apologize for its acts of aggression during World War II, and repudiate Japanese militarism. Only then can it regain the trust of its Asian neighbors. Japan can then become a strategic buffer, and promote a win/win/win scenario between Mainland China, the US, and Japan, as well as between Mainland China, Japan, and Taiwan. The US can then cease using cross-Strait relations and the Sino-Japanese conflict to reap strategic advantage.
Mainland China, the United States, and Japan are Taiwan's most important economic, trade, and security partners. Healthy coopetition among the United States, Mainland China, and Japan is beneficial to Taiwan. If military conflict erupts among them, Taiwan cannot avoid being dragged in. The public on Taiwan seeks continued cross-Strait peace. Peace is a necessary condition for stability and prosperity. Taiwan wants Mainland China, the United States, and Japan, to create a win/win/win scenario for Asia. Prime Minister Abe said Taiwan is an important partner. As a friend of Japan, we encourage Japan to face the facts of history, offer sincere repentance, obtain forgiveness from its Asian neighbors, and courageously tread the path of peace in Asia.
The Taiwan-Japan Fisheries Agreement shows that sovereignty disputes can be settled peacefully and the threat of conflict can be averted, leading to a win-win situation. Taiwan will not be satisfied merely to obtain fishing rights. It will continue to promote cooperation between the US and Japan. The "East China Sea peace initiative" and "South China Sea Peace Initiative" can facilitate peace and stability in Asia.
Will this road map for peace in Asia work? That depends on the United States and its attitude toward war and peace in East Asia. Will it persuade the Abe government to apologize to its Asian neighbors for World War II aggression, and repudiate Japanese militarism? Only that can dispel the specter of war, and ensure a bright future for Asia.
化解東亞戰爭幽靈
美國是關鍵
2015年08月18日 中國時報
日本首相安倍發表戰後70周年談話，
過去幾年，安倍政府公然漠視和平憲法，不顧主流民意反對，
我們深究原因，是美國對亞洲的戰略意圖左右了日本安倍的態度。
目前，美國的財政瀕臨癱瘓，中國與日本作為美國最大的債權國，
美國若要繼續從亞洲獲得重大的經貿與安全利益，
同時，美國要讓亞洲主要國家相信，美國能夠在經濟上與軍事上，
因此，我們期盼美國能夠積極強化綜合國力，
大陸及美日兩國是台灣最重要的經貿與安全合作夥伴，
《台日漁業協議》的簽署顯示在主權衝突威脅下，
不過，這張「亞洲和平發展路線圖」能否繼續走下去，
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Urgent Need for Old and New Generation Cooperation on Reunification
Urgent Need for Old and New Generation Cooperation on Reunification
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2015
Executive Summary: "Natural independence" is a new buzzword that emerged from the Sunflower Student Movement. It refers to a new phenomenon in Taiwan's political environment. Just what is "natural independence"? Taiwan independence theoretician Lin Cho-shui explains. "The older generation's education determined its sense of national identity. Reunification was then a mainstream value. Reunification for them became second nature. Considerable soul searching was necessary before they could become reoriented toward independence. But young people are growing up in an era when Taiwan independence is the mainstream value. Therefore they exemplify "natural independence".
Full Text Below:
"Natural independence" is a new buzzword that emerged from the Sunflower Student Movement. It refers to a new phenomenon in Taiwan's political environment. Just what is "natural independence"? Taiwan independence theoretician Lin Cho-shui explains. "The older generation's education determined its sense of national identity. Reunification was then a mainstream value. Reunification for them became second nature. Considerable soul searching was necessary before they could become reoriented toward independence. But young people are growing up in an era when Taiwan independence is the mainstream value. Therefore they exemplify "natural independence".
The claim that "Taiwan independence has become a mainstream value" is of course an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that a "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Taiwan consciousness" are mainstream values. Just before the Sunflower Student Movement erupted, a TVBS opinion poll showed that 78% of people consider themselves Taiwanese. Among these, 89% of 20 to 29 year olds consider themselves Taiwanese. This is higher even than the percentage for those over 60. Thinking of oneself as Taiwanese however, is hardly the same as advocating Taiwan independence. But intervention by political and social forces does indeed cultivate advocates for Taiwan independence.
This reveals the internal contradiction in "natural independence" rhetoric. Were it not for the intervention of political and social forces, Taiwanese consciousness would not naturally lead to calls for Taiwan independence. So-called "natural independence" ideology is anything but natural. It would be more accurate to call it "new independence" thought. In fact advocate of "natural independence" Lin Cho-shui made a Freudian slip when he said, "We should rejoice. For the past 20 years the DPP has bickered over the Taiwan independence party platform. Fortunately however, it never gave up. Otherwise, it is doubtful whether Taiwan society today would be one of "natural independence". This confirms that the DPP Taiwan independence party platform and other Taiwan independence movements created "new Taiwan independence" thinking.
Lin Cho-shui said something else interesting. He said "New Taiwan independence forces have given Chairman Tsai Ing-wen a huge boost". He said this was the reason Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan independence consciousness has become a "natural ingredient" for the younger generation. Tsai Ing-wen's statement was made after the Sunflower Student Movement incident ended, and before last year's DPP National Party Congress convened. Her motive was to fend off public demands that the DPP to freeze its Taiwan independence party platform.
With the encouragement of new Taiwan independence forces, Tsai Ing-wen argued that the Taiwan independence party platform was the reason the Democratic Progressive party was founded. It was the ideal pursued by that generation of DPP leaders. It accompanied Taiwan's democratization. We created a deep seated "Taiwan consciousness", she said. This identification with Taiwan and this demand for independence, has become a "natural ingredient" for the younger generation. How can we "freeze' such a state? How can be "abolish" it? Tsai's statement was significant, Tsai Ing-wen is middle-aged. She is caught between old Taiwan independence and new Taiwan independence. In the past her Taiwan independence colors were hidden. Now however, she has openly declared that Taiwan independence was her generation's ideal. She admitted that Taiwan consciousness was something "We created". It was the result of DPP promotion. It was hardly a "natural ingredient".
Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform shows what Tsai Ing-wen means by "maintaining the status quo". Meanwhile, Sunflower Student Movement leader Huang Kuo-chang formed a radical fringe outside the DPP. Recently it merged with old Taiwan independence elements, and plans to cooperate on matters of organization, resources, and elections. In fact, the announcement of this cooperation was premeditated. In early July, the "New Power Party" declared that many younger generation members already exemplify "natural independence". These younger generation members would "pursue the normalization of Taiwan statehood" as a party platform. They would become the founders of the New Power Party. The New Power Party would be more radical than the DPP. It would promote cross-Strait oversight regulations, constitutional reform. It would abolish the Act Governing Relations between Peoples on both Sides of the Strait. It would participate in international activities under the name "Taiwan". It would "establish normal diplomatic relations with [Mainland] China". These five projects would purportedly "complete the normalization of Taiwan statehood". The New Power Party's position is quite clear. Its pro-independence colors are unmistakable. It supports Tsai Ing-wen. It seeks to merge old and new Taiwan independence forces to acquire more power. The old politicians of the TSU operate outside the KMT and DPP. The New Power Party, by contrast, will have better mobilization skills, more persuasive rhetoric, and a better public image. Next year, when its candidates are elected to the legislature, it will force the DPP to push harder for Taiwan independence. Its radical ideas on cross-Strait relations will become a major factor.
New and old Taiwan independence forces are merging. They are gradually rallying middle-aged Taiwan independence advocates. This should send a message to pro-Chinese reunification and pro-Mainland forces. According to a 1111 Job Bank survey, 61% of the public wants to "Go West" and work on the Mainland. The youngest among these hope to go to the Mainland to work. Others hope to go to the Mainland to study. When this younger generation joins the workforce, it will face a harsh cross-Strait and international reality. It will face an underlying framework that is pro-[Mainland]China, and pro-Chinese reunification.
This underlying framework can aid Chinese reunification. It can play a significant role in Taiwan society. But first champions of reunification must play a more aggressive role. Older generation pro-reunification scholars, business leaders with social networks, and politicians who share these ideals and values must create a hotbed for the cultivation of of Chinese reunification ideology, rhetoric, and social relations. .
Even more importantly, this generation, which constitutes the backbone of society, must safeguard the ROC Constitution. It must defend the Constitution, and reaffirm the China Factor during ideological debates. The Taiwan independence party platform plays a key role in new Taiwan independence. The ROC Constitution must play a corresponding role in Chinese reunification. It must not be shaken, frozen, or weakened.
新舊「合中」世代結合有緊迫性
2015年08月17日 中國時報
「天然獨」，是太陽花運動之後浮現的新名詞，用來描述一個浮上台灣政治地表的新現象。什麼是「天然獨」，有台獨理論大師之稱的林濁水這樣說：「老一代的人，接受教育形成國家認同的人生階段，落在統一是社會主流價值的時代，耳濡目染之下他們成為『先天性』的統，要經過一番心靈的掙扎才變成『後天性』的獨。但是年輕人卻成長在台獨已成為社會主流價值的時代，因此就成了『自然獨』」。
說「台獨已成為社會主流價值」，當然是言過其實，但是如果說某種成分的「台灣人意識」、「台灣意識」是台灣社會的主流價值，應該是比較準確的。太陽花學運之前，TVBS一份民意調查顯示，78%民眾認為自己是台灣人，其中20到29歲的年輕人有89%認為自己是台灣人，甚至高於60歲以上的比例。但認為自己是台灣人絕對不等於認同台獨主張，但是經過政治力、社會力的介入與醞釀之後，確實容易發展成台獨主張的認同者。
但是，這就顯示「天然獨」論述的自我矛盾，如果沒有政治力、社會力的介入與醞釀，天然的台灣意識，並不會直接「自然而然」成為台獨認同者。天然獨並不天然，稱之為新台獨比較接近事實。這點其實在天然獨鼓吹者林濁水的論述中已不經意點出了，他說：「我們應該慶幸，20年來民進黨雖然一直為台獨黨綱吵吵鬧鬧，幸虧從未放棄，否則，今天的台灣社會會不會有讓年輕人『自然獨』的環境，值得懷疑」。這裡就顯示了民進黨台獨黨綱以及其他台獨運動在催化新台獨上的作用。
林濁水的另一段話也很意味深長，他表示「新台獨給蔡英文主席很大的振奮」，所以蔡英文才說台獨意識已經變成年輕世代的「天然成分」。蔡英文的話正是在太陽花學運之後、去年民進黨全代會前說的，目的是要反擊社會要求民進黨凍結台獨黨綱的聲浪。
蔡英文在新台獨的鼓勵下表示，台獨黨綱是民進黨創黨時期所揭示的目標，也是這一代民進黨人的追求與理想，隨著台灣的民主化，我們建構了深厚的「台灣意識」，這個認同台灣、堅持獨立自主的價值，已經變成年輕世代的「天然成」，這樣的事實、這樣的狀態，如何去「凍結」？如何去「廢除」？這段話相當重要，蔡英文是老台獨和新台獨之間的中生代，過去的台獨色彩比較隱晦，但她現在表明台獨是她「這一代」的理想，此外，她也承認台灣意識是「我們建構」的，是民進黨推動的結果，不完全是「天然成分」。
從蔡英文的言論與堅拒凍結台獨黨綱的行動，我們可以看到蔡英文所謂維持現狀論的實質，另一方面，以太陽花學運領導者黃國昌為首的時代力量，不但積極形成民進黨外的激進側翼，近日更和「老台獨」合流，將在組織上、資源上和選舉上進行合作。其實，這樣合作的宣布是有鋪陳的。時代力量在7月初就宣稱，正如許多年輕的新世代早已成為「天然獨」，「時代力量」也將「追求台灣國家地位正常化」列為黨綱，成為時代力量的創黨DNA，時代力量擺出比民進黨更激進的台獨姿態，表明未來將依序推動兩岸監督條例、憲改、廢除兩岸人民關係條例、以台灣名義參與國際活動、「與中國建立正常的外交關係」五大工作，來「完成台灣國家地位的正常化」。非常明顯，獨派色彩清晰、支持蔡英文的時代力量，在實現新老台獨結合之後，獲得更大的動力，比起以國民兩黨以外舊政客集結的台聯，新的台灣時代力量將擁有更強的動員力、論述力和更佳的社會形象，明年一旦進入國會，將成為逼迫、支持民進黨在台獨議題上更為前進的關鍵力量，他們的激進主張也將成為明年兩岸關係上的重大變數。
從新老台獨結合、催化中生代台獨潛在因子復甦強化的整個漫長過程，倒是可以給台灣「合中」與「親中」力量許多啟示。根據1111人力銀行調查，61%民眾希望西進大陸工作，其中越年輕的世代越希望前往大陸工作，加上前往大陸求學的趨勢，年輕世代在接近、進入社會之後，面對兩岸與國際的現實，有著「不反中」、「合中」、「親中」的潛在基礎與趨勢。
這一股潛在基礎與趨勢，要真正形成現實的合中與親中力量，進而發揮更重大的影響力，首先需要台灣社會存在的「老合中」世代─他們可能是資深的專家學者、是擁有廣泛社會網絡的企業領導菁英、是有著類似理想與價值的政治人物─來發揮更重大的作用，在思想上、論述上，以及社會關係上滋養「新合中」力量生長茁壯的土壤。
更重要的是，社會的中堅世代要更堅定的維護中華民國憲法、捍衛憲法、豐富憲法中「中華」元素的相關論述，就像台獨黨綱之於新台獨的作用，這是合中與親中力量存在發展的重要政治憑藉，不能動搖，更不能凍結、弱化。
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 17, 2015
Executive Summary: "Natural independence" is a new buzzword that emerged from the Sunflower Student Movement. It refers to a new phenomenon in Taiwan's political environment. Just what is "natural independence"? Taiwan independence theoretician Lin Cho-shui explains. "The older generation's education determined its sense of national identity. Reunification was then a mainstream value. Reunification for them became second nature. Considerable soul searching was necessary before they could become reoriented toward independence. But young people are growing up in an era when Taiwan independence is the mainstream value. Therefore they exemplify "natural independence".
Full Text Below:
"Natural independence" is a new buzzword that emerged from the Sunflower Student Movement. It refers to a new phenomenon in Taiwan's political environment. Just what is "natural independence"? Taiwan independence theoretician Lin Cho-shui explains. "The older generation's education determined its sense of national identity. Reunification was then a mainstream value. Reunification for them became second nature. Considerable soul searching was necessary before they could become reoriented toward independence. But young people are growing up in an era when Taiwan independence is the mainstream value. Therefore they exemplify "natural independence".
The claim that "Taiwan independence has become a mainstream value" is of course an exaggeration. It would be more accurate to say that a "Taiwanese consciousness" and "Taiwan consciousness" are mainstream values. Just before the Sunflower Student Movement erupted, a TVBS opinion poll showed that 78% of people consider themselves Taiwanese. Among these, 89% of 20 to 29 year olds consider themselves Taiwanese. This is higher even than the percentage for those over 60. Thinking of oneself as Taiwanese however, is hardly the same as advocating Taiwan independence. But intervention by political and social forces does indeed cultivate advocates for Taiwan independence.
This reveals the internal contradiction in "natural independence" rhetoric. Were it not for the intervention of political and social forces, Taiwanese consciousness would not naturally lead to calls for Taiwan independence. So-called "natural independence" ideology is anything but natural. It would be more accurate to call it "new independence" thought. In fact advocate of "natural independence" Lin Cho-shui made a Freudian slip when he said, "We should rejoice. For the past 20 years the DPP has bickered over the Taiwan independence party platform. Fortunately however, it never gave up. Otherwise, it is doubtful whether Taiwan society today would be one of "natural independence". This confirms that the DPP Taiwan independence party platform and other Taiwan independence movements created "new Taiwan independence" thinking.
Lin Cho-shui said something else interesting. He said "New Taiwan independence forces have given Chairman Tsai Ing-wen a huge boost". He said this was the reason Tsai Ing-wen said Taiwan independence consciousness has become a "natural ingredient" for the younger generation. Tsai Ing-wen's statement was made after the Sunflower Student Movement incident ended, and before last year's DPP National Party Congress convened. Her motive was to fend off public demands that the DPP to freeze its Taiwan independence party platform.
With the encouragement of new Taiwan independence forces, Tsai Ing-wen argued that the Taiwan independence party platform was the reason the Democratic Progressive party was founded. It was the ideal pursued by that generation of DPP leaders. It accompanied Taiwan's democratization. We created a deep seated "Taiwan consciousness", she said. This identification with Taiwan and this demand for independence, has become a "natural ingredient" for the younger generation. How can we "freeze' such a state? How can be "abolish" it? Tsai's statement was significant, Tsai Ing-wen is middle-aged. She is caught between old Taiwan independence and new Taiwan independence. In the past her Taiwan independence colors were hidden. Now however, she has openly declared that Taiwan independence was her generation's ideal. She admitted that Taiwan consciousness was something "We created". It was the result of DPP promotion. It was hardly a "natural ingredient".
Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to freeze the Taiwan independence party platform shows what Tsai Ing-wen means by "maintaining the status quo". Meanwhile, Sunflower Student Movement leader Huang Kuo-chang formed a radical fringe outside the DPP. Recently it merged with old Taiwan independence elements, and plans to cooperate on matters of organization, resources, and elections. In fact, the announcement of this cooperation was premeditated. In early July, the "New Power Party" declared that many younger generation members already exemplify "natural independence". These younger generation members would "pursue the normalization of Taiwan statehood" as a party platform. They would become the founders of the New Power Party. The New Power Party would be more radical than the DPP. It would promote cross-Strait oversight regulations, constitutional reform. It would abolish the Act Governing Relations between Peoples on both Sides of the Strait. It would participate in international activities under the name "Taiwan". It would "establish normal diplomatic relations with [Mainland] China". These five projects would purportedly "complete the normalization of Taiwan statehood". The New Power Party's position is quite clear. Its pro-independence colors are unmistakable. It supports Tsai Ing-wen. It seeks to merge old and new Taiwan independence forces to acquire more power. The old politicians of the TSU operate outside the KMT and DPP. The New Power Party, by contrast, will have better mobilization skills, more persuasive rhetoric, and a better public image. Next year, when its candidates are elected to the legislature, it will force the DPP to push harder for Taiwan independence. Its radical ideas on cross-Strait relations will become a major factor.
New and old Taiwan independence forces are merging. They are gradually rallying middle-aged Taiwan independence advocates. This should send a message to pro-Chinese reunification and pro-Mainland forces. According to a 1111 Job Bank survey, 61% of the public wants to "Go West" and work on the Mainland. The youngest among these hope to go to the Mainland to work. Others hope to go to the Mainland to study. When this younger generation joins the workforce, it will face a harsh cross-Strait and international reality. It will face an underlying framework that is pro-[Mainland]China, and pro-Chinese reunification.
This underlying framework can aid Chinese reunification. It can play a significant role in Taiwan society. But first champions of reunification must play a more aggressive role. Older generation pro-reunification scholars, business leaders with social networks, and politicians who share these ideals and values must create a hotbed for the cultivation of of Chinese reunification ideology, rhetoric, and social relations. .
Even more importantly, this generation, which constitutes the backbone of society, must safeguard the ROC Constitution. It must defend the Constitution, and reaffirm the China Factor during ideological debates. The Taiwan independence party platform plays a key role in new Taiwan independence. The ROC Constitution must play a corresponding role in Chinese reunification. It must not be shaken, frozen, or weakened.
新舊「合中」世代結合有緊迫性
2015年08月17日 中國時報
「天然獨」，是太陽花運動之後浮現的新名詞，用來描述一個浮上台灣政治地表的新現象。什麼是「天然獨」，有台獨理論大師之稱的林濁水這樣說：「老一代的人，接受教育形成國家認同的人生階段，落在統一是社會主流價值的時代，耳濡目染之下他們成為『先天性』的統，要經過一番心靈的掙扎才變成『後天性』的獨。但是年輕人卻成長在台獨已成為社會主流價值的時代，因此就成了『自然獨』」。
說「台獨已成為社會主流價值」，當然是言過其實，但是如果說某種成分的「台灣人意識」、「台灣意識」是台灣社會的主流價值，應該是比較準確的。太陽花學運之前，TVBS一份民意調查顯示，78%民眾認為自己是台灣人，其中20到29歲的年輕人有89%認為自己是台灣人，甚至高於60歲以上的比例。但認為自己是台灣人絕對不等於認同台獨主張，但是經過政治力、社會力的介入與醞釀之後，確實容易發展成台獨主張的認同者。
但是，這就顯示「天然獨」論述的自我矛盾，如果沒有政治力、社會力的介入與醞釀，天然的台灣意識，並不會直接「自然而然」成為台獨認同者。天然獨並不天然，稱之為新台獨比較接近事實。這點其實在天然獨鼓吹者林濁水的論述中已不經意點出了，他說：「我們應該慶幸，20年來民進黨雖然一直為台獨黨綱吵吵鬧鬧，幸虧從未放棄，否則，今天的台灣社會會不會有讓年輕人『自然獨』的環境，值得懷疑」。這裡就顯示了民進黨台獨黨綱以及其他台獨運動在催化新台獨上的作用。
林濁水的另一段話也很意味深長，他表示「新台獨給蔡英文主席很大的振奮」，所以蔡英文才說台獨意識已經變成年輕世代的「天然成分」。蔡英文的話正是在太陽花學運之後、去年民進黨全代會前說的，目的是要反擊社會要求民進黨凍結台獨黨綱的聲浪。
蔡英文在新台獨的鼓勵下表示，台獨黨綱是民進黨創黨時期所揭示的目標，也是這一代民進黨人的追求與理想，隨著台灣的民主化，我們建構了深厚的「台灣意識」，這個認同台灣、堅持獨立自主的價值，已經變成年輕世代的「天然成」，這樣的事實、這樣的狀態，如何去「凍結」？如何去「廢除」？這段話相當重要，蔡英文是老台獨和新台獨之間的中生代，過去的台獨色彩比較隱晦，但她現在表明台獨是她「這一代」的理想，此外，她也承認台灣意識是「我們建構」的，是民進黨推動的結果，不完全是「天然成分」。
從蔡英文的言論與堅拒凍結台獨黨綱的行動，我們可以看到蔡英文所謂維持現狀論的實質，另一方面，以太陽花學運領導者黃國昌為首的時代力量，不但積極形成民進黨外的激進側翼，近日更和「老台獨」合流，將在組織上、資源上和選舉上進行合作。其實，這樣合作的宣布是有鋪陳的。時代力量在7月初就宣稱，正如許多年輕的新世代早已成為「天然獨」，「時代力量」也將「追求台灣國家地位正常化」列為黨綱，成為時代力量的創黨DNA，時代力量擺出比民進黨更激進的台獨姿態，表明未來將依序推動兩岸監督條例、憲改、廢除兩岸人民關係條例、以台灣名義參與國際活動、「與中國建立正常的外交關係」五大工作，來「完成台灣國家地位的正常化」。非常明顯，獨派色彩清晰、支持蔡英文的時代力量，在實現新老台獨結合之後，獲得更大的動力，比起以國民兩黨以外舊政客集結的台聯，新的台灣時代力量將擁有更強的動員力、論述力和更佳的社會形象，明年一旦進入國會，將成為逼迫、支持民進黨在台獨議題上更為前進的關鍵力量，他們的激進主張也將成為明年兩岸關係上的重大變數。
從新老台獨結合、催化中生代台獨潛在因子復甦強化的整個漫長過程，倒是可以給台灣「合中」與「親中」力量許多啟示。根據1111人力銀行調查，61%民眾希望西進大陸工作，其中越年輕的世代越希望前往大陸工作，加上前往大陸求學的趨勢，年輕世代在接近、進入社會之後，面對兩岸與國際的現實，有著「不反中」、「合中」、「親中」的潛在基礎與趨勢。
這一股潛在基礎與趨勢，要真正形成現實的合中與親中力量，進而發揮更重大的影響力，首先需要台灣社會存在的「老合中」世代─他們可能是資深的專家學者、是擁有廣泛社會網絡的企業領導菁英、是有著類似理想與價值的政治人物─來發揮更重大的作用，在思想上、論述上，以及社會關係上滋養「新合中」力量生長茁壯的土壤。
更重要的是，社會的中堅世代要更堅定的維護中華民國憲法、捍衛憲法、豐富憲法中「中華」元素的相關論述，就像台獨黨綱之於新台獨的作用，這是合中與親中力量存在發展的重要政治憑藉，不能動搖，更不能凍結、弱化。
Thursday, August 13, 2015
TPP: Taiwan Must Be Prepared
TPP: Taiwan Must Be Prepared
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 14, 2015
Executive Summary: The latest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) talks have collapsed, primarily because the 12 economic and trade leaders have issued non-negotiable demands. Japan is committed to the elimination of US auto parts tariffs, in return for Japanese concessions on agricultural products. But Mexico wants to maintain its competitive advantage in the US market. It insists that car and truck components be 65% domestic content, and that only TPP members may enjoy lower tariffs. Canada is about to hold a general election. It has no desire to liberalize the dairy market, and has clashed on this with New Zealand. In order to win Republican support in congress, the United States seeks to extend drug patents for TPP members by 12 years. leaving all member countries unhappy.
Full Text Below:
The latest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) talks have collapsed, primarily because the 12 economic and trade leaders have issued non-negotiable demands. Japan is committed to the elimination of US auto parts tariffs, in return for Japanese concessions on agricultural products. But Mexico wants to maintain its competitive advantage in the US market. It insists that car and truck components be 65% domestic content, and that only TPP members may enjoy lower tariffs. Canada is about to hold a general election. It has no desire to liberalize the dairy market, and has clashed on this with New Zealand. In order to win Republican support in congress, the United States seeks to extend drug patents for TPP members by 12 years. leaving all member countries unhappy.
Participants in TPP negotiations include the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. These countries vary greatly in their economic scale and development, and are subject to different political forces. Former US government trade negotiator Susan C. Schwab said that with 12 different countries negotiating, some are certain to be in the midst of elections. When the negotiations get down to brass tacks, they naturally result in deadlock.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is unwilling to declare her support for the TPP. Negotiations have broken down. As a result, some observers think the future of the TPP looks dim. Others consider this a minor setback. Julio Lancaster, chief economist for The Economist magazine, publicly declared the TPP dead. The Australian Financial Review criticized TPP participants, saying they were promoting protectionism not free trade. It said the next soonest negotiations could resume would be November 2016, after the US presidential election. Fortune magazine said many member states are preparing to hold general elections, therefore final negotiations are likely to be delayed. On the other hand, on the 7th, US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed confidence TPP signing would be complete before the end of the year. Time magazine agreed, saying it expected the TPP to be finalized by the end of this year. The Washington Post said the completion of the first round of TPP talks is merely a matter of time.
Since the TPP involves US strategic interests, we believe it will be signed sooner or later. The TPP is the most important component of Obama's "Asian rebalancing" strategy. Promoting the TPP counters the Mainland's RCEP, bilateral trade agreements, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, even the recent One Belt, One Road, and ensures Asian economic dominance. It gives domestic US industries an leg up over those in emerging economies, and provides a boost for US economic recovery. Promoting the TPP is Obama's chief economic achievement. TPP failure amounts to "Asian rebalancing" failure. Therefore no matter how much member countries may be at loggerheads currently, the United States will mediate and ensure its passage.
Will Taiwan be allowed to join the TPP? Two factors are involved. One is the Mainland's attitude and the other is our own state of readiness. In the former case, both sides could end up joining, in the same way they joined the WTO. But that scenario is not under our control. That is up to the United States. It also requires cross-Strait trust and goodwill. All we can do is make preparations and seize the opportunity when it arises, and ensure that Taiwan's industries do not lag too far behind those of other countries.
If the TPP is signed into law, new members will be allowed to join the second round of negotiations. South Korea has expressed willingness to participate. The Mainland has also hinted that it might join. In response, Taiwan has carried out some feasibility studies. The Ministry of Economic Affairs says that over 50 ROC laws and regulations conflict with the TPP. Increasing freedom of trade and eliminating conflicting laws and regulations will help Taiwan win a seat in the second round of negotiations.
The TPP's biggest impact on Taiwan is in agriculture and services. Agriculture is supreme. Allowing in US pork and beef organ meats will help us join the TPP. Farmers and special interest groups are of course opposed. But the TPP allows more than just pork and beef organ meats imports. It also allows in pork organ meats, chicken, and rice. Taiwan has long been highly protective of its agriculture. As this newspaper reported recently, the average tax rate on agricultural products is 13.88%. In addition, 21 agricultural products enjoy special protection or tariff quotas. These products account for 46% of our total agricultural output. They too face future challenges.
In response to regional economic integration, the government has begun making reforms. The Council of Agriculture announced that starting next year, the 40-year old policy of purchasing rice would be gradually adjusted. In response, farmers protested on Ketagalan Boulevard, by drying their rice on the road. The impact of agricultural trade liberalization is huge. The government must offer a more proactive response. It must provide Taiwan farmers with alernative business strategies, and support agricultural transformation.
The TPP requires opening up the service sector to foreign professionals, allowing them to enter the country. Banks will be allowed to conduct electronic cross-border transactions. They need not establish local business sites. The TPP promotes the free flow of information across borders. The establishment of local information centers or servers is not required. Telecommunications must eliminate foreign ownership restrictions. Many of these conflict with our current laws and regulations.
The TPP includes 29 chapters. Many are highly controversial. Others require further deliberation. We must demonstrate sincerity and determination. We must be ready to join the regional economy, and ready to carry out reforms. The greatest danger is procrastination. One day negotiations will begin in earnest. Unless we are prepared, the opportunity will pass us by.
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 14, 2015
Executive Summary: The latest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) talks have collapsed, primarily because the 12 economic and trade leaders have issued non-negotiable demands. Japan is committed to the elimination of US auto parts tariffs, in return for Japanese concessions on agricultural products. But Mexico wants to maintain its competitive advantage in the US market. It insists that car and truck components be 65% domestic content, and that only TPP members may enjoy lower tariffs. Canada is about to hold a general election. It has no desire to liberalize the dairy market, and has clashed on this with New Zealand. In order to win Republican support in congress, the United States seeks to extend drug patents for TPP members by 12 years. leaving all member countries unhappy.
Full Text Below:
The latest round of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) talks have collapsed, primarily because the 12 economic and trade leaders have issued non-negotiable demands. Japan is committed to the elimination of US auto parts tariffs, in return for Japanese concessions on agricultural products. But Mexico wants to maintain its competitive advantage in the US market. It insists that car and truck components be 65% domestic content, and that only TPP members may enjoy lower tariffs. Canada is about to hold a general election. It has no desire to liberalize the dairy market, and has clashed on this with New Zealand. In order to win Republican support in congress, the United States seeks to extend drug patents for TPP members by 12 years. leaving all member countries unhappy.
Participants in TPP negotiations include the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam. These countries vary greatly in their economic scale and development, and are subject to different political forces. Former US government trade negotiator Susan C. Schwab said that with 12 different countries negotiating, some are certain to be in the midst of elections. When the negotiations get down to brass tacks, they naturally result in deadlock.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is unwilling to declare her support for the TPP. Negotiations have broken down. As a result, some observers think the future of the TPP looks dim. Others consider this a minor setback. Julio Lancaster, chief economist for The Economist magazine, publicly declared the TPP dead. The Australian Financial Review criticized TPP participants, saying they were promoting protectionism not free trade. It said the next soonest negotiations could resume would be November 2016, after the US presidential election. Fortune magazine said many member states are preparing to hold general elections, therefore final negotiations are likely to be delayed. On the other hand, on the 7th, US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed confidence TPP signing would be complete before the end of the year. Time magazine agreed, saying it expected the TPP to be finalized by the end of this year. The Washington Post said the completion of the first round of TPP talks is merely a matter of time.
Since the TPP involves US strategic interests, we believe it will be signed sooner or later. The TPP is the most important component of Obama's "Asian rebalancing" strategy. Promoting the TPP counters the Mainland's RCEP, bilateral trade agreements, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, even the recent One Belt, One Road, and ensures Asian economic dominance. It gives domestic US industries an leg up over those in emerging economies, and provides a boost for US economic recovery. Promoting the TPP is Obama's chief economic achievement. TPP failure amounts to "Asian rebalancing" failure. Therefore no matter how much member countries may be at loggerheads currently, the United States will mediate and ensure its passage.
Will Taiwan be allowed to join the TPP? Two factors are involved. One is the Mainland's attitude and the other is our own state of readiness. In the former case, both sides could end up joining, in the same way they joined the WTO. But that scenario is not under our control. That is up to the United States. It also requires cross-Strait trust and goodwill. All we can do is make preparations and seize the opportunity when it arises, and ensure that Taiwan's industries do not lag too far behind those of other countries.
If the TPP is signed into law, new members will be allowed to join the second round of negotiations. South Korea has expressed willingness to participate. The Mainland has also hinted that it might join. In response, Taiwan has carried out some feasibility studies. The Ministry of Economic Affairs says that over 50 ROC laws and regulations conflict with the TPP. Increasing freedom of trade and eliminating conflicting laws and regulations will help Taiwan win a seat in the second round of negotiations.
The TPP's biggest impact on Taiwan is in agriculture and services. Agriculture is supreme. Allowing in US pork and beef organ meats will help us join the TPP. Farmers and special interest groups are of course opposed. But the TPP allows more than just pork and beef organ meats imports. It also allows in pork organ meats, chicken, and rice. Taiwan has long been highly protective of its agriculture. As this newspaper reported recently, the average tax rate on agricultural products is 13.88%. In addition, 21 agricultural products enjoy special protection or tariff quotas. These products account for 46% of our total agricultural output. They too face future challenges.
In response to regional economic integration, the government has begun making reforms. The Council of Agriculture announced that starting next year, the 40-year old policy of purchasing rice would be gradually adjusted. In response, farmers protested on Ketagalan Boulevard, by drying their rice on the road. The impact of agricultural trade liberalization is huge. The government must offer a more proactive response. It must provide Taiwan farmers with alernative business strategies, and support agricultural transformation.
The TPP requires opening up the service sector to foreign professionals, allowing them to enter the country. Banks will be allowed to conduct electronic cross-border transactions. They need not establish local business sites. The TPP promotes the free flow of information across borders. The establishment of local information centers or servers is not required. Telecommunications must eliminate foreign ownership restrictions. Many of these conflict with our current laws and regulations.
The TPP includes 29 chapters. Many are highly controversial. Others require further deliberation. We must demonstrate sincerity and determination. We must be ready to join the regional economy, and ready to carry out reforms. The greatest danger is procrastination. One day negotiations will begin in earnest. Unless we are prepared, the opportunity will pass us by.
社論－操之在人 先做好加入TPP準備
跨太平洋夥伴協定（TPP）最近一輪談判破局，
參加TPP談判的國家包含美國、加拿大、墨西哥、祕魯、智利、
民主黨總統參選人希拉蕊也不願表態支持TPP，加上談判破裂，
我們認為，無論早晚，TPP牽涉美國戰略利益，最後還是會簽。
台灣能否加入TPP，涉及二個面向，一是中共態度，
TPP若順利簽署生效，將開放新成員加入第二輪談判。
TPP對台灣衝擊最大的是農業和服務業，其中以農業為甚。
為因應區域經濟整合，政府已經開始進行改革，
服務業方面，TPP主張開放外國專業人士入境提供服務、
TPP有29章，除爭議最大的幾項外，
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Sendai, Japan and the Resumption of Nuclear Power Generation on Taiwan
Sendai, Japan and the Resumption of Nuclear Power Generation on Taiwan
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 13, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Number One, in Kyushu, Japan went back online on August 11. It is expected to resume operation in mid August, ending Japan's nearly two year long "no nukes" regime. The Sendai One plant is the first nuclear power plant built to Japan's new safety standards since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Full Text Below:
The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Number One, in Kyushu, Japan went back online on August 11. It is expected to resume operation in mid August, ending Japan's nearly two year long "no nukes" regime. The Sendai One plant is the first nuclear power plant built to Japan's new safety standards since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The restart of nuclear power generation is considered a major energy policy victory for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan suspended operation of all nuclear power plants. The Kansai Electric Power Company's Ohi Nuclear Power Plant was restarted briefly. But most of Japan remained in a "no nukes" condition. Now that the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant has been restarted, other power plants are also expected seek permission to restart. That makes this a major turning point for Japan's energy policy in the wake of the disaster of 3/11.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan shut down all of its nuclear power plants. It was forced to rely on alternative power generation, with natural gas accounting for the lion's share. Japan imported large quantities of natural gas, exacerbating its trade deficit. Having re-embraced nuclear power, Japan can now reduce purchases of fuel from abroad. This will have a major impact on Abe's economic policies.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was greeted by vigorous protests and legal appeals. The process was troubled. Polls show that over half the people on Japan still oppose the restart of nuclear plant operations. Despite intense anti-nuclear sentiment, the Abe government has allowed the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant to resume operations. The decision involved emotions, reason, and legality. The Japanese government found it difficult to win over the public emotionally. But Japanese officials did their homework when it came to reason and legality.
Following the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan reformed its nuclear regulatory mechanisms. It established a Nuclear Regulation Authority to implement a more stringent nuclear regulatory regime. Review by the new mechanism confirmed that the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant would not be affected by tsunamis or active faults. Reactor waterproofing was improved, and emergency power supplies were increased to avoid a replay of the power outages and radioactive leaks resulting from the Fukushima power plant disaster. The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was approved by the Satsumasendai City Council in Kagoshima Prefecture, where the nuclear power plant is located. The Kagoshima District Court dismissed injuctions obtained by non-governmental organizations to prevent the restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. This completed the legal process.
In other words, Japanese official were unable to persuade the Japanese people to accept the restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. But they devoted considerable attention to reason and legality.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant provides a mirror for nuclear energy policy on Taiwan. Our own nuclear power generation policy remains stalled. Taiwan's energy policy remains on hold. This shows that people on Taiwan respond to nuclear issues purely on emotions. They completely ignore reason and legality.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the public on Taiwan raised concerns about the safety of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The government planned to conduct a thorough examination, submit a report, then hold a public referendum on whether to abolish nuclear power plants. But last year the Sunflower Student Movement protests and Lin Yi-hsiung's hunger strike put the government on the spot. Even though the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant passed muster, the Ma government did not bother with a referendum. It simply mothballed the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant on its own without bothering to consult anyone. It considered only emotions. It ignored legality. It betrayed an abysmal lack of resolve. It acted willy nilly, without any effort to solve the problem within the framework of the law. It simply mothballed the Number Fout Nuclear Power Plant, temporarily burying the controversy, Taiwan energy policy continues to mark time, or even retreat. Will Taiwan continue to use nuclear power? Will the three existing nuclear power plants remain in operation? No one bothers to ask. This can only be blamed on electoral politics and blue vs. green confrontation.
Taiwan is geographically similar to Japan. It too is surrounded by the sea. It too faces the threat of earthquakes. The Fukushima nuclear disaster provided Taiwan with a warning. The threat posed by earthquakes and tsunamis to nuclear power plants is worse than envisaged in the early years of nuclear power plant design. In-depth research on the threat posed by faultlines and tsunamis to nearby nuclear power plants remains lacking. Consider the Shanchiao Fault in northern Taiwan. This fault passes between the Number One and Number Two Nuclear Power Plants. and extends north all the way into the sea. But the government's study of the Sanchaio Fault was limited to the land portion. The section extending into the sea was investigated only by Taipower, which was limited by its ability and its funds. Its investigation has remained stalled.
Beginning next year, Taiwan will face a critical review of the Number One and Number Two Nuclear Power Plants, to determine whether thay should remain in operation. But a scientific investigation of the Sanchiao Fault is required. Without it, reliable data about the impact of tsunamis on these two nuclear power plants will be lacking. Nuclear power plant construction may be delayed. Public debate will surely be based on emotions rather than reason. How can any decisions made possibly be consistent with the greater good?
Energy policy is a multiple choice issue. not a true/false issue. Consideration must be given to safety, environmental protection, and cost. The trade-offs are difficult. Therefore the government's energy policy must consider emotions, reason, and the law. Only then can it ensure smooth, long-term benefits.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant is an important step for Japan's post-Fukushima energy policy. We must ask ourselves why Taiwan cannot take the next step in energy policy. How long can Taiwan afford to keep spinning its wheels?
聯合／從日本川內核電廠重啟看台灣
2015-08-13 02:08:13 聯合報 聯合報社論
位於日本九州的川內核電廠一號機十一日上午重新啟動，預計八月中重新加入供電，結束日本近兩年的「零核電」情況。川內一號機是二○一一年福島核災後，首座符合日本「新安全標準」的核能機組。
這 次核電廠重啟，被視為日本首相安倍在能源政策上的一大勝利。原因是，福島核災後，日本暫停境內所有核電廠運作，其間雖有關西電力的大飯核電廠短暫重啟，但 多數時間日本都處於「零核電」狀態。川內核電廠重啟後，其他日本核電廠也將陸續申請重啟，所以，這是日本能源政策在三一一後一個重要的轉折點。
日本在福島核災後關閉所有核電廠，必須改以火力發電替代，又以天然氣為大宗；日本因此進口大量天然氣，故而貿易一度出現逆差。日本重新擁抱核電後，將可減少對外採購燃料支出，對於安倍拚經濟成果將有關鍵性影響。
川 內核電廠的重啟，歷經民間強力抗爭及司法訴訟，過程相當艱鉅；即使如此，民調顯示日本民眾反對核電廠重啟的比率仍超過五成。在這麼高的反核聲浪中，安倍政 府能讓川內核電廠恢復運轉，從情理法三個面向來看，除了在情感面上較難以說服民眾，日本官方在「理」跟「法」方面都下足了功夫。
首先，福 島核災後，日本改革核能監管機制，成立「原子力規制委員會」，實施更嚴格的核能監管機制。經過新機制的審核，確認川內核電廠不會受到海嘯、活斷層的影響， 並提升反應爐的防水功能，增加緊急電源，以免重蹈福島電廠遭海嘯侵襲後失去電源而爆發核災的覆轍。除此之外，川內核電廠重啟，也經過核電廠所在地鹿兒島縣 薩摩川內市議會同意，鹿兒島地方法院並駁回日本民間團體提出的禁止川內核電廠重啟的假處分，程序完備。
換言之，除了無法在情感上說服日本民眾接受川內核電廠重啟，日本官方在重啟川內核電廠過程中，相當重視「理」和「法」的層面，並作了充分努力。
川內核電廠的重啟，可作為台灣核能政策的一面鏡子。但以此檢視台灣的作法，不但顯示我國能源政策仍在原地踏步，也凸顯台灣處理核能議題只顧到「情」的層面，完全沒有「理」與「法」的思慮。
福 島核災後，國人對核四的疑慮升高，政府規畫先總體檢核四，提出報告後，再交由全民決定核四存廢。但去年在太陽花運動後，林義雄隨即進行禁食抗議，使政府進 退失據。儘管後來核四總體檢過關，但馬政府並未舉行公投，即逕自作成「封存」核四的決定。如此只顧情面、不顧法理的和稀泥，完全缺乏從制度層面解決核四爭 議的思維。核四封存，只是暫時掩埋了爭議，台灣能源政策則繼續原地踏步、甚至倒退。至於台灣未來要不要繼續使用核電，或現有的三座核電廠要不要延役，則陷 入無人聞問的狀態。這些，都不能不歸諸選舉政治與藍綠對峙所造成。
台灣與日本的地理環境類似，同樣四面環海，面臨地震威脅。福島核災給台 灣的警示是：地震與海嘯對核電廠的威脅，比早年核電廠設計時的設想還要嚴重。然而，台灣對於核電廠附近的斷層與海嘯研究，始終缺乏深入調查探究的決心，以 北台灣的「山腳斷層」為例，這條斷層行經核一廠與核二廠中間，一路向北延伸入海中。但目前我國官方對山腳斷層的研究僅限於陸地，延伸入海的部分交由台電調 查，但台電受限於能力與經費，調查根本停滯。
明年起，台灣將陸續面臨核一、核二廠能否延役的審查關鍵期。但是，如果缺少山腳斷層的科學調查，就不可能得到海嘯對兩座核電廠影響的可靠數據；屆時，核電廠能否延役，社會討論必然是感性壓過理性，又如何可能做出符合整體利益的決定？
能源政策是一道選擇題，而非是非題，必須在安全、環保與價格三方作出合適的考量。正因為取捨困難，政府的能源政策必須在情、理、法三方同步努力，才能長遠與順利的推動。
川內核電廠重啟代表日本能源政策邁出福島核災後的重要一步，我們必須反思：為何台灣遲遲跨不出能源政策的關鍵下一步？我們又還有多少時間可以原地踏步？
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 13, 2015
Executive Summary: The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Number One, in Kyushu, Japan went back online on August 11. It is expected to resume operation in mid August, ending Japan's nearly two year long "no nukes" regime. The Sendai One plant is the first nuclear power plant built to Japan's new safety standards since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Full Text Below:
The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant Number One, in Kyushu, Japan went back online on August 11. It is expected to resume operation in mid August, ending Japan's nearly two year long "no nukes" regime. The Sendai One plant is the first nuclear power plant built to Japan's new safety standards since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The restart of nuclear power generation is considered a major energy policy victory for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan suspended operation of all nuclear power plants. The Kansai Electric Power Company's Ohi Nuclear Power Plant was restarted briefly. But most of Japan remained in a "no nukes" condition. Now that the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant has been restarted, other power plants are also expected seek permission to restart. That makes this a major turning point for Japan's energy policy in the wake of the disaster of 3/11.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan shut down all of its nuclear power plants. It was forced to rely on alternative power generation, with natural gas accounting for the lion's share. Japan imported large quantities of natural gas, exacerbating its trade deficit. Having re-embraced nuclear power, Japan can now reduce purchases of fuel from abroad. This will have a major impact on Abe's economic policies.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was greeted by vigorous protests and legal appeals. The process was troubled. Polls show that over half the people on Japan still oppose the restart of nuclear plant operations. Despite intense anti-nuclear sentiment, the Abe government has allowed the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant to resume operations. The decision involved emotions, reason, and legality. The Japanese government found it difficult to win over the public emotionally. But Japanese officials did their homework when it came to reason and legality.
Following the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan reformed its nuclear regulatory mechanisms. It established a Nuclear Regulation Authority to implement a more stringent nuclear regulatory regime. Review by the new mechanism confirmed that the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant would not be affected by tsunamis or active faults. Reactor waterproofing was improved, and emergency power supplies were increased to avoid a replay of the power outages and radioactive leaks resulting from the Fukushima power plant disaster. The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant was approved by the Satsumasendai City Council in Kagoshima Prefecture, where the nuclear power plant is located. The Kagoshima District Court dismissed injuctions obtained by non-governmental organizations to prevent the restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. This completed the legal process.
In other words, Japanese official were unable to persuade the Japanese people to accept the restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant. But they devoted considerable attention to reason and legality.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant provides a mirror for nuclear energy policy on Taiwan. Our own nuclear power generation policy remains stalled. Taiwan's energy policy remains on hold. This shows that people on Taiwan respond to nuclear issues purely on emotions. They completely ignore reason and legality.
Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the public on Taiwan raised concerns about the safety of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The government planned to conduct a thorough examination, submit a report, then hold a public referendum on whether to abolish nuclear power plants. But last year the Sunflower Student Movement protests and Lin Yi-hsiung's hunger strike put the government on the spot. Even though the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant passed muster, the Ma government did not bother with a referendum. It simply mothballed the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant on its own without bothering to consult anyone. It considered only emotions. It ignored legality. It betrayed an abysmal lack of resolve. It acted willy nilly, without any effort to solve the problem within the framework of the law. It simply mothballed the Number Fout Nuclear Power Plant, temporarily burying the controversy, Taiwan energy policy continues to mark time, or even retreat. Will Taiwan continue to use nuclear power? Will the three existing nuclear power plants remain in operation? No one bothers to ask. This can only be blamed on electoral politics and blue vs. green confrontation.
Taiwan is geographically similar to Japan. It too is surrounded by the sea. It too faces the threat of earthquakes. The Fukushima nuclear disaster provided Taiwan with a warning. The threat posed by earthquakes and tsunamis to nuclear power plants is worse than envisaged in the early years of nuclear power plant design. In-depth research on the threat posed by faultlines and tsunamis to nearby nuclear power plants remains lacking. Consider the Shanchiao Fault in northern Taiwan. This fault passes between the Number One and Number Two Nuclear Power Plants. and extends north all the way into the sea. But the government's study of the Sanchaio Fault was limited to the land portion. The section extending into the sea was investigated only by Taipower, which was limited by its ability and its funds. Its investigation has remained stalled.
Beginning next year, Taiwan will face a critical review of the Number One and Number Two Nuclear Power Plants, to determine whether thay should remain in operation. But a scientific investigation of the Sanchiao Fault is required. Without it, reliable data about the impact of tsunamis on these two nuclear power plants will be lacking. Nuclear power plant construction may be delayed. Public debate will surely be based on emotions rather than reason. How can any decisions made possibly be consistent with the greater good?
Energy policy is a multiple choice issue. not a true/false issue. Consideration must be given to safety, environmental protection, and cost. The trade-offs are difficult. Therefore the government's energy policy must consider emotions, reason, and the law. Only then can it ensure smooth, long-term benefits.
The restart of the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant is an important step for Japan's post-Fukushima energy policy. We must ask ourselves why Taiwan cannot take the next step in energy policy. How long can Taiwan afford to keep spinning its wheels?
聯合／從日本川內核電廠重啟看台灣
2015-08-13 02:08:13 聯合報 聯合報社論
位於日本九州的川內核電廠一號機十一日上午重新啟動，預計八月中重新加入供電，結束日本近兩年的「零核電」情況。川內一號機是二○一一年福島核災後，首座符合日本「新安全標準」的核能機組。
這 次核電廠重啟，被視為日本首相安倍在能源政策上的一大勝利。原因是，福島核災後，日本暫停境內所有核電廠運作，其間雖有關西電力的大飯核電廠短暫重啟，但 多數時間日本都處於「零核電」狀態。川內核電廠重啟後，其他日本核電廠也將陸續申請重啟，所以，這是日本能源政策在三一一後一個重要的轉折點。
日本在福島核災後關閉所有核電廠，必須改以火力發電替代，又以天然氣為大宗；日本因此進口大量天然氣，故而貿易一度出現逆差。日本重新擁抱核電後，將可減少對外採購燃料支出，對於安倍拚經濟成果將有關鍵性影響。
川 內核電廠的重啟，歷經民間強力抗爭及司法訴訟，過程相當艱鉅；即使如此，民調顯示日本民眾反對核電廠重啟的比率仍超過五成。在這麼高的反核聲浪中，安倍政 府能讓川內核電廠恢復運轉，從情理法三個面向來看，除了在情感面上較難以說服民眾，日本官方在「理」跟「法」方面都下足了功夫。
首先，福 島核災後，日本改革核能監管機制，成立「原子力規制委員會」，實施更嚴格的核能監管機制。經過新機制的審核，確認川內核電廠不會受到海嘯、活斷層的影響， 並提升反應爐的防水功能，增加緊急電源，以免重蹈福島電廠遭海嘯侵襲後失去電源而爆發核災的覆轍。除此之外，川內核電廠重啟，也經過核電廠所在地鹿兒島縣 薩摩川內市議會同意，鹿兒島地方法院並駁回日本民間團體提出的禁止川內核電廠重啟的假處分，程序完備。
換言之，除了無法在情感上說服日本民眾接受川內核電廠重啟，日本官方在重啟川內核電廠過程中，相當重視「理」和「法」的層面，並作了充分努力。
川內核電廠的重啟，可作為台灣核能政策的一面鏡子。但以此檢視台灣的作法，不但顯示我國能源政策仍在原地踏步，也凸顯台灣處理核能議題只顧到「情」的層面，完全沒有「理」與「法」的思慮。
福 島核災後，國人對核四的疑慮升高，政府規畫先總體檢核四，提出報告後，再交由全民決定核四存廢。但去年在太陽花運動後，林義雄隨即進行禁食抗議，使政府進 退失據。儘管後來核四總體檢過關，但馬政府並未舉行公投，即逕自作成「封存」核四的決定。如此只顧情面、不顧法理的和稀泥，完全缺乏從制度層面解決核四爭 議的思維。核四封存，只是暫時掩埋了爭議，台灣能源政策則繼續原地踏步、甚至倒退。至於台灣未來要不要繼續使用核電，或現有的三座核電廠要不要延役，則陷 入無人聞問的狀態。這些，都不能不歸諸選舉政治與藍綠對峙所造成。
台灣與日本的地理環境類似，同樣四面環海，面臨地震威脅。福島核災給台 灣的警示是：地震與海嘯對核電廠的威脅，比早年核電廠設計時的設想還要嚴重。然而，台灣對於核電廠附近的斷層與海嘯研究，始終缺乏深入調查探究的決心，以 北台灣的「山腳斷層」為例，這條斷層行經核一廠與核二廠中間，一路向北延伸入海中。但目前我國官方對山腳斷層的研究僅限於陸地，延伸入海的部分交由台電調 查，但台電受限於能力與經費，調查根本停滯。
明年起，台灣將陸續面臨核一、核二廠能否延役的審查關鍵期。但是，如果缺少山腳斷層的科學調查，就不可能得到海嘯對兩座核電廠影響的可靠數據；屆時，核電廠能否延役，社會討論必然是感性壓過理性，又如何可能做出符合整體利益的決定？
能源政策是一道選擇題，而非是非題，必須在安全、環保與價格三方作出合適的考量。正因為取捨困難，政府的能源政策必須在情、理、法三方同步努力，才能長遠與順利的推動。
川內核電廠重啟代表日本能源政策邁出福島核災後的重要一步，我們必須反思：為何台灣遲遲跨不出能源政策的關鍵下一步？我們又還有多少時間可以原地踏步？
Feitsui Reservoir Reputation for Water Quality Shattered Overnight
Feitsui Reservoir Reputation for Water Quality Shattered Overnight
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 12, 2015
Executive Summary: Typhoon Soudelor has passed. Two disasters have befallen the City of Taipei. The first involves the Feitsui Reservoir, an erstwhile model of efficiency which supplies water to the entire island of Taiwan. For three consecutive days it has piped contaminated water to the public. The second involves tens of thousands of trees along the city's parkways. The scene is heart-breaking. Mayor Ko Wen-je, it turns out, was home all day during the typhoon. He was a no-show at the Taipei Emergency Operations Center. This provoked widespread complaints that despite Ko's frequent boasts about putting "white (aka, KMT) governance" to shame, he betrayed scant concern for the public welfare.
Full Text Below:
Typhoon Soudelor has passed. Two disasters have befallen the City of Taipei. The first involves the Feitsui Reservoir, an erstwhile model of efficiency which supplies water to the entire island of Taiwan. For three consecutive days it has piped contaminated water to the public. The second involves tens of thousands of trees along the city's parkways. The scene is heart-breaking. Mayor Ko Wen-je, it turns out, was home all day during the typhoon. He was a no-show at the Taipei Emergency Operations Center. This provoked widespread complaints that despite Ko's frequent boasts about putting "white (aka, KMT) governance" to shame, he betrayed scant concern for the public welfare.
The Feitsui Reservoir was built in 1987. It has been in operation for 28 years. Its water supply has long remained stable, its water quality pure, and its water rates low. It has been the pride of Taipei City. Who knew the recent typhoon would end all that? Upstream mud and rock slides increased upstream Xindian Creek turbidity. Turbidity measurements skyrocketed to nearly 40,000 Formazin Turbidity Units (FTUs), over 1,000 times normal. Roiling brown waters left onlookers aghast. Who knew the Taipei Water Department would disregard water quality standards and public safety considerations? Who knew it would feed these waters from polluted streams directly into water treatment plants, then into peoples' homes?
The public has been scrambling to buy bottled water in supermarkets. Ko Wen-je seized the opportunity to launch a pre-emptive strike against the KMT ruled central government. He alleged that the source of water turbidity was the Nanshih Creek. He blamed the central government for poor soil and water conservation practices, and demanded that the central government conduct an inspection as soon as possible. Ko's rhetoric rang with self-righteousness. But Nanshih Creek water and soil conservation problems did not arise yesterday. If they impacted the quality of the public's drinking water, why didn't Ko respond long ago and remedy the situation? Besides, the Taipei Water Department could have adopted a "triage" approach to Nanshih Creek water turbidity. It could have isolated the Nanshih Creek's turbid water, and accessed the relatively clear Peishih Creek. Instead, it allowed people to drink contaminated water for an entire day before informing them that it was unfit for human consumption.
Put simply, the reputation of the Feitsui Reservoir has been shattered by poor water and soil conservation practices along the Nanshih Creek upstream. But the roiling brown water being piped into Taipei residents' homes, is the result of Ko administration's failures in management and service provisions. It was unable to adapt. It was unable or reluctant to confront the problems and tackle them head on.
Take the Shihmen Reservoir for example. Upstream overdevelopment created serious problems. In 2004, Typhoon Aere caused upstream landslides that increased water turbidity tens of thousands of FTUs. Taoyuan residents were left without water for days. The Water Resources Agency devoted considerable effort to remedy the problem. Legislation improved management of the upstream catchment. A new reservoir design improved desilting. Water intakes were located at different depths in the reservoir to mitigate the impact of water turbidity. The same was true for Typhoon Soudelor. The water quality from Shihmen Reservoir was normal. The water from Feitsui Reservoir was brown, This shows there were reasons for Shimen Reservoir's improvement and Feitsui Reservoir's decline.
Take the Feitsui Reservoir for example. Water quality in the Peishih Creek directly upstream from the reservoir was not a problem. The problem was that the Taipei Water Department water intake was located further downstream, in Chitan. Between Feitsui Reservoir and Chitan, water from Nanshih Creek entered. If water from the Nanshih Creek is unclean, Feitsui Reservoir water, no matter how clear, is certain to be polluted. Examples such as the Shihmen Reservoir have led experts to recommend diverting water from the Peishih Creek and Nanshih Creek. If necessary, polluted water from Nanshih Creek can be isolated, preventing it from flowing directly into the clean water of Chitan. Ironically, the Taipei Water Department has long been resting on its laurels, on the reputation of the Feitsui Reservoir. As a result the public mistakenly assumed it was drinking natural and clean tap water. This myth would eventually be shattered by Typhoon Soudelor.
The pollution of Nanshi Creek is in fact related to recent overdevelopment of the Wulai Mountain District hot springs. The hot springs and shops have damaged the soil and water. They have dumped waste water everywhere, willy nilly, affecting Nanshih Creek water quality. Overdevelopment has also led to landslides for Wulai residents. These problems have been around for years. But government agencies have dealt with them in a cavalier manner. The Nanshih Creek water and soil conservation management agencies are even more ridiculous. The central governmetn Council of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water District Agency, Taipei City Government, and New Taipei City Government are all implicated. The result of layer upon layer of bureaucracy has been the "Tragedy of the Commons".
The Feitsui Reservoir's reputation for water quality has been shattered, overnight. The public has been forced to drink brown water. It now realizes that contaminated water from the Feitsui Reservoir was piped into their homes in a slapdash manner. How can it not be distraught? Similarly, tens of thousands of trees in Taipei were toppled, mainly because they were not pruned in a timely manner. The tree beds are usually too small, and offer insufficient foothold for top-heavy trees. As result, the streets have become tree cemeteries. This scene of desolation took even Ko Wen-je by surprise. Since taking office, Ko has held forth about "standard operationg procedure", throwing temper tantrums and ordering his underlings to "Get out of my sight!" A wave of resignations swept the Park and Street Lights Office, resulting in insufficient manpower. Ko publicly excoriated the Farglory Taipei Dome project. As he saw it, he was displaying reformist resolve. But when it came to the public's daily need for water, and its emotional ties to old trees in their community, he betrayed callous indifference and left people utterly disillusioned.
Ko Wen-je loves to hold forth on reform. But he needs to do more than just talk. If the mayor prefers to stay home all day when typhoons strike, that's not a problem. But he cannot neglect the pruning and cleanup of roadside trees even as he excoriates the Shihmen Reservoir for flood discharges. He cannot pipe polluted drinking water into peoples' homes, even as he disavows all responsibility for the fiasco.
聯合／翡翠水庫清澈傳奇為何一夕破功？
2015-08-12 01:34:56 聯合報 聯合報社論
蘇迪勒颱風過後，台北市出現兩大災情，一是全台供水模範生的翡翠水庫，竟然連三天向市民送出汙濁的自來水；二是全市公園路樹傾倒上萬棵，情狀慘不忍睹。事後爆出市長柯文哲當天整日在家，並未坐鎮防災中心指揮，引起不少民眾怨言，認為「白色執政」動輒誇口改革，卻輕忽民生一至於此。
翡翠水庫自一九八七年建成啟用至今廿八年，一向以供水穩定、水質優良、且價格低廉，成為台北人的驕傲。孰料，這次受颱風影響，上游土石崩落，新店溪上游濁度飆高至近四萬度，較平時超出一千多倍。滾滾黃水，令人看了都感驚心；沒想到，台北市自來水處竟不顧品質與安全，直接取用這些汙濁的溪水送進自來水處理廠處理，然後直接進了市民家中。
就在民眾到賣場四處搶水之際，柯文哲先發制人，聲稱造成水質混濁的源頭在南勢溪，並將矛頭指向中央，認為南勢溪水土保持欠佳的責任在中央，要中央儘速檢查。話雖說得理直氣壯，但是，南勢溪水土保持不好並不是今天才發生的事，既然影響市民用水品質，為何不及早設法因應改善？再說，南勢溪水混濁，自來水處大可採取「分流」方式，隔離南勢溪濁水，而取用較清澈的北勢溪水處理；而市府卻讓民眾喝了一天黃水之後，才通知大家暫勿飲用。
簡單地說，翡翠水庫清澈傳奇的破滅，是由於南勢溪上游水土保持失守。但是，台北市把黃濁的泥水送進市民家中，卻是因為管理及服務思維抱殘守缺、不知應變，甚至不敢直視並改善自己的問題。
以石門水庫為例，由於上游濫墾導致淤積嚴重，二○○四年的艾利颱風期間因上游大崩坍使原水濁度飆高到數萬度，桃園居民多日無水可用。為此，水利署費了一番努力，除立法加強上游集水區的管理，更新增了水庫排砂的設計，並在水庫不同高度設置取水口，以減緩災後濁度對供水的影響。同是蘇迪勒颱風過境，這次石門水庫的供水品質正常，反而是翡翠水庫染黃，正說明石門與翡翠的「一進一退」不是沒有原因的。
再看翡翠水庫的情況。水庫上游直接來自北勢溪的水，確實品質無虞；問題在，北水處的取水口是設在比較下游的直潭，從翡翠水庫到直潭之間有南勢溪水匯入。亦即，如果無法確保南勢溪水之潔淨，翡翠水庫的水再怎麼清澈，勢必遭到濁水汙染。也因此，以石門水庫之殷鑑，專家建議，應設法增加北勢溪與南勢溪分流的設計，在必要時，可將南勢溪汙濁的水源隔離，使其不進入直潭淨水場。諷刺的是，北水處長期對外宣傳翡翠水庫的清澈美名，讓市民誤以為自己飲用的是多麼天然清澈的自來水；這個真相，終被蘇迪勒戳破。
南勢溪的汙濁化，其實與近年烏來山區溫泉旅館的過度開發有關，除了山區水土的破壞，溫泉鄉及商業廢水任意傾洩，在在影響南勢溪水質，過度開發也導致烏來居民居住地的土崩石流。此一問題，其實已經出現多年，相關單位卻掉以輕心。更荒謬的是，管理南勢溪水土保持的單位，從中央的農委會、林務局、水源區管理局、到雙北市皆涉其間，層層疊疊的結果，就是三不管，以至於斯。
翡翠水庫的清澈傳奇，因蘇迪勒毀於一旦。市民喝了一天黃水，才知道心目中潔淨的翡翠水，是如此潦草地送進了自己的家中，能不扼腕？同樣的，台北市這次有上萬棵路樹傾倒，主要原因，是許多應該修剪的樹木卻未修剪，加上行道樹普遍樹穴狹小，大樹頭重腳輕無以立足，讓街道變成了老樹墳場。這副慘狀，恐怕也是柯文哲所始料未及。上任以來，他開口閉口ＳＯＰ，動不動就拍桌叫屬下滾蛋，公園路燈管理處爆發離職潮，導致人力不足。他口口聲聲對遠雄大巨蛋開罵時，以為是在展現改革魄力；但對市民日常所需的供水，對市民深有感情的社區老樹，他卻毫不在意，委實讓民眾失望了。
柯文哲除高談改革，也必須做點實事。颱風天，市長要整天待在家裡，其實不是問題。重點在，他不能不管路樹的修剪及清理，卻撈過界去砲打石門水庫洩洪；更不能把不合格的自來水送給市民飲用，卻大剌剌地說那完全錯不在己。
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 12, 2015
Executive Summary: Typhoon Soudelor has passed. Two disasters have befallen the City of Taipei. The first involves the Feitsui Reservoir, an erstwhile model of efficiency which supplies water to the entire island of Taiwan. For three consecutive days it has piped contaminated water to the public. The second involves tens of thousands of trees along the city's parkways. The scene is heart-breaking. Mayor Ko Wen-je, it turns out, was home all day during the typhoon. He was a no-show at the Taipei Emergency Operations Center. This provoked widespread complaints that despite Ko's frequent boasts about putting "white (aka, KMT) governance" to shame, he betrayed scant concern for the public welfare.
Full Text Below:
Typhoon Soudelor has passed. Two disasters have befallen the City of Taipei. The first involves the Feitsui Reservoir, an erstwhile model of efficiency which supplies water to the entire island of Taiwan. For three consecutive days it has piped contaminated water to the public. The second involves tens of thousands of trees along the city's parkways. The scene is heart-breaking. Mayor Ko Wen-je, it turns out, was home all day during the typhoon. He was a no-show at the Taipei Emergency Operations Center. This provoked widespread complaints that despite Ko's frequent boasts about putting "white (aka, KMT) governance" to shame, he betrayed scant concern for the public welfare.
The Feitsui Reservoir was built in 1987. It has been in operation for 28 years. Its water supply has long remained stable, its water quality pure, and its water rates low. It has been the pride of Taipei City. Who knew the recent typhoon would end all that? Upstream mud and rock slides increased upstream Xindian Creek turbidity. Turbidity measurements skyrocketed to nearly 40,000 Formazin Turbidity Units (FTUs), over 1,000 times normal. Roiling brown waters left onlookers aghast. Who knew the Taipei Water Department would disregard water quality standards and public safety considerations? Who knew it would feed these waters from polluted streams directly into water treatment plants, then into peoples' homes?
The public has been scrambling to buy bottled water in supermarkets. Ko Wen-je seized the opportunity to launch a pre-emptive strike against the KMT ruled central government. He alleged that the source of water turbidity was the Nanshih Creek. He blamed the central government for poor soil and water conservation practices, and demanded that the central government conduct an inspection as soon as possible. Ko's rhetoric rang with self-righteousness. But Nanshih Creek water and soil conservation problems did not arise yesterday. If they impacted the quality of the public's drinking water, why didn't Ko respond long ago and remedy the situation? Besides, the Taipei Water Department could have adopted a "triage" approach to Nanshih Creek water turbidity. It could have isolated the Nanshih Creek's turbid water, and accessed the relatively clear Peishih Creek. Instead, it allowed people to drink contaminated water for an entire day before informing them that it was unfit for human consumption.
Put simply, the reputation of the Feitsui Reservoir has been shattered by poor water and soil conservation practices along the Nanshih Creek upstream. But the roiling brown water being piped into Taipei residents' homes, is the result of Ko administration's failures in management and service provisions. It was unable to adapt. It was unable or reluctant to confront the problems and tackle them head on.
Take the Shihmen Reservoir for example. Upstream overdevelopment created serious problems. In 2004, Typhoon Aere caused upstream landslides that increased water turbidity tens of thousands of FTUs. Taoyuan residents were left without water for days. The Water Resources Agency devoted considerable effort to remedy the problem. Legislation improved management of the upstream catchment. A new reservoir design improved desilting. Water intakes were located at different depths in the reservoir to mitigate the impact of water turbidity. The same was true for Typhoon Soudelor. The water quality from Shihmen Reservoir was normal. The water from Feitsui Reservoir was brown, This shows there were reasons for Shimen Reservoir's improvement and Feitsui Reservoir's decline.
Take the Feitsui Reservoir for example. Water quality in the Peishih Creek directly upstream from the reservoir was not a problem. The problem was that the Taipei Water Department water intake was located further downstream, in Chitan. Between Feitsui Reservoir and Chitan, water from Nanshih Creek entered. If water from the Nanshih Creek is unclean, Feitsui Reservoir water, no matter how clear, is certain to be polluted. Examples such as the Shihmen Reservoir have led experts to recommend diverting water from the Peishih Creek and Nanshih Creek. If necessary, polluted water from Nanshih Creek can be isolated, preventing it from flowing directly into the clean water of Chitan. Ironically, the Taipei Water Department has long been resting on its laurels, on the reputation of the Feitsui Reservoir. As a result the public mistakenly assumed it was drinking natural and clean tap water. This myth would eventually be shattered by Typhoon Soudelor.
The pollution of Nanshi Creek is in fact related to recent overdevelopment of the Wulai Mountain District hot springs. The hot springs and shops have damaged the soil and water. They have dumped waste water everywhere, willy nilly, affecting Nanshih Creek water quality. Overdevelopment has also led to landslides for Wulai residents. These problems have been around for years. But government agencies have dealt with them in a cavalier manner. The Nanshih Creek water and soil conservation management agencies are even more ridiculous. The central governmetn Council of Agriculture, Forest Service, Water District Agency, Taipei City Government, and New Taipei City Government are all implicated. The result of layer upon layer of bureaucracy has been the "Tragedy of the Commons".
The Feitsui Reservoir's reputation for water quality has been shattered, overnight. The public has been forced to drink brown water. It now realizes that contaminated water from the Feitsui Reservoir was piped into their homes in a slapdash manner. How can it not be distraught? Similarly, tens of thousands of trees in Taipei were toppled, mainly because they were not pruned in a timely manner. The tree beds are usually too small, and offer insufficient foothold for top-heavy trees. As result, the streets have become tree cemeteries. This scene of desolation took even Ko Wen-je by surprise. Since taking office, Ko has held forth about "standard operationg procedure", throwing temper tantrums and ordering his underlings to "Get out of my sight!" A wave of resignations swept the Park and Street Lights Office, resulting in insufficient manpower. Ko publicly excoriated the Farglory Taipei Dome project. As he saw it, he was displaying reformist resolve. But when it came to the public's daily need for water, and its emotional ties to old trees in their community, he betrayed callous indifference and left people utterly disillusioned.
Ko Wen-je loves to hold forth on reform. But he needs to do more than just talk. If the mayor prefers to stay home all day when typhoons strike, that's not a problem. But he cannot neglect the pruning and cleanup of roadside trees even as he excoriates the Shihmen Reservoir for flood discharges. He cannot pipe polluted drinking water into peoples' homes, even as he disavows all responsibility for the fiasco.
聯合／翡翠水庫清澈傳奇為何一夕破功？
2015-08-12 01:34:56 聯合報 聯合報社論
蘇迪勒颱風過後，台北市出現兩大災情，一是全台供水模範生的翡翠水庫，竟然連三天向市民送出汙濁的自來水；二是全市公園路樹傾倒上萬棵，情狀慘不忍睹。事後爆出市長柯文哲當天整日在家，並未坐鎮防災中心指揮，引起不少民眾怨言，認為「白色執政」動輒誇口改革，卻輕忽民生一至於此。
翡翠水庫自一九八七年建成啟用至今廿八年，一向以供水穩定、水質優良、且價格低廉，成為台北人的驕傲。孰料，這次受颱風影響，上游土石崩落，新店溪上游濁度飆高至近四萬度，較平時超出一千多倍。滾滾黃水，令人看了都感驚心；沒想到，台北市自來水處竟不顧品質與安全，直接取用這些汙濁的溪水送進自來水處理廠處理，然後直接進了市民家中。
就在民眾到賣場四處搶水之際，柯文哲先發制人，聲稱造成水質混濁的源頭在南勢溪，並將矛頭指向中央，認為南勢溪水土保持欠佳的責任在中央，要中央儘速檢查。話雖說得理直氣壯，但是，南勢溪水土保持不好並不是今天才發生的事，既然影響市民用水品質，為何不及早設法因應改善？再說，南勢溪水混濁，自來水處大可採取「分流」方式，隔離南勢溪濁水，而取用較清澈的北勢溪水處理；而市府卻讓民眾喝了一天黃水之後，才通知大家暫勿飲用。
簡單地說，翡翠水庫清澈傳奇的破滅，是由於南勢溪上游水土保持失守。但是，台北市把黃濁的泥水送進市民家中，卻是因為管理及服務思維抱殘守缺、不知應變，甚至不敢直視並改善自己的問題。
以石門水庫為例，由於上游濫墾導致淤積嚴重，二○○四年的艾利颱風期間因上游大崩坍使原水濁度飆高到數萬度，桃園居民多日無水可用。為此，水利署費了一番努力，除立法加強上游集水區的管理，更新增了水庫排砂的設計，並在水庫不同高度設置取水口，以減緩災後濁度對供水的影響。同是蘇迪勒颱風過境，這次石門水庫的供水品質正常，反而是翡翠水庫染黃，正說明石門與翡翠的「一進一退」不是沒有原因的。
再看翡翠水庫的情況。水庫上游直接來自北勢溪的水，確實品質無虞；問題在，北水處的取水口是設在比較下游的直潭，從翡翠水庫到直潭之間有南勢溪水匯入。亦即，如果無法確保南勢溪水之潔淨，翡翠水庫的水再怎麼清澈，勢必遭到濁水汙染。也因此，以石門水庫之殷鑑，專家建議，應設法增加北勢溪與南勢溪分流的設計，在必要時，可將南勢溪汙濁的水源隔離，使其不進入直潭淨水場。諷刺的是，北水處長期對外宣傳翡翠水庫的清澈美名，讓市民誤以為自己飲用的是多麼天然清澈的自來水；這個真相，終被蘇迪勒戳破。
南勢溪的汙濁化，其實與近年烏來山區溫泉旅館的過度開發有關，除了山區水土的破壞，溫泉鄉及商業廢水任意傾洩，在在影響南勢溪水質，過度開發也導致烏來居民居住地的土崩石流。此一問題，其實已經出現多年，相關單位卻掉以輕心。更荒謬的是，管理南勢溪水土保持的單位，從中央的農委會、林務局、水源區管理局、到雙北市皆涉其間，層層疊疊的結果，就是三不管，以至於斯。
翡翠水庫的清澈傳奇，因蘇迪勒毀於一旦。市民喝了一天黃水，才知道心目中潔淨的翡翠水，是如此潦草地送進了自己的家中，能不扼腕？同樣的，台北市這次有上萬棵路樹傾倒，主要原因，是許多應該修剪的樹木卻未修剪，加上行道樹普遍樹穴狹小，大樹頭重腳輕無以立足，讓街道變成了老樹墳場。這副慘狀，恐怕也是柯文哲所始料未及。上任以來，他開口閉口ＳＯＰ，動不動就拍桌叫屬下滾蛋，公園路燈管理處爆發離職潮，導致人力不足。他口口聲聲對遠雄大巨蛋開罵時，以為是在展現改革魄力；但對市民日常所需的供水，對市民深有感情的社區老樹，他卻毫不在意，委實讓民眾失望了。
柯文哲除高談改革，也必須做點實事。颱風天，市長要整天待在家裡，其實不是問題。重點在，他不能不管路樹的修剪及清理，卻撈過界去砲打石門水庫洩洪；更不能把不合格的自來水送給市民飲用，卻大剌剌地說那完全錯不在己。
Monday, August 10, 2015
Ko Wen-je Squeaks By, Tsai Ing-wen Remains in the Cold
Ko Wen-je Squeaks By, Tsai Ing-wen Remains in the Cold
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 11, 2015
Executive Summary: The Taipei-Shanghai "Twin Cities Forum" will convene in Shanghai on the 17th. Ko Wen-je will personally head a delegation and attend. Zhang Zhijun, Director of the Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office, said he "looks forward to it". Cross-Strait relations may undergo major changes in 2016. Yet city to city exchanges continue without interruption. That is significant. But when Beijing authorities are shaking Ko Wen-je's hand, they will be asking where Tsai Ing-wen stands. Tsai Ing-wen's feet remain mired in the quicksand of Taiwan independence. Never mind her invocation of the "constitutional framework of the Republic of China" as the basis for cross-Strait relations. Given the Twin Cities Forum dispute, will Tsai Ing-wen be able to "run the red light"?
Full Text Below:
The Taipei-Shanghai "Twin Cities Forum" will convene in Shanghai on the 17th. Ko Wen-je will personally head a delegation and attend. Zhang Zhijun, Director of the Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office, said he "looks forward to it". Cross-Strait relations may undergo major changes in 2016. Yet city to city exchanges continue without interruption. That is significant. But when Beijing authorities are shaking Ko Wen-je's hand, they will be asking where Tsai Ing-wen stands. Tsai Ing-wen's feet remain mired in the quicksand of Taiwan independence. Never mind her invocation of the "constitutional framework of the Republic of China" as the basis for cross-Strait relations. Given the Twin Cities Forum dispute, will Tsai Ing-wen be able to "run the red light"?
From Beijing's perspective, the Twin Cities Forum is a form of bridge building. The deep green Ko Wen-je may be useful in dealing with Tsai Ing-wen and cross-Strait relations after 2016. Will the cross-Strait collision result in more breathing space, or less?
In March, the Beijing authorities held a series of press conferences. Ko Wen-je declared, verbatim, that "one China is not a problem", and that "the two sides of the Strait are one family". The Beijing authorities expressed "appreciation". As a result, the Twin Cities Forum were not cancelled. But lo and behold, Ko Wen-je later claimed that the Mainland media "quoted him out of context". The Mainland authorities sometimes find Taiwan's political rhetoric slippery. This is especially true of Old School green camp reunification vs. independence rhetoric. Even statements made asked openly in the media, may involve countless loopholes. Therefore even though it is already August, and preparations for the Twin Cities Forum are nearly complete, the Deputy Mayor of Shanghai must now confirm Ko Wen-je's stance with the help of the Mainland media.
Beijing now wants confirmation on the 1992 Consensus. Before Ko Wen-je took office, he said "I have no idea what the 1992 Consensus is about". He even wondered why a "consensus without a consensus" from 20 years ago is the basis for current exchanges. Ko later corrected himself, and said he "understands and respects" the 1992 Consensus. He said he understood that cross-Strait exchanges are not international exchanges. Ko Wen-je's change in tune eliminated the political obstacles standing in the way of the Twin Cities Forum and his visit to the Mainland as mayor.
Regarding the Taiwan Affairs Office's expression of "appreciation", Ko Wen-je dismissed it as "diplomatic language". But Ko spoke to the Mainland media twice. Both times he indulged in political sophistry. In response to Beijing's "one China" stance, the United States said it "acknowledged it" and raised no objections. But it avoided saying that it "recognized it". Japan expressed "understanding and respect". Ko Wen-je said his "One China is not a problem" remark referred to the blue vs. green "consensus without consensus". He said the blue camp affirmed it, and the green camp was happy to go along. He said the green camp's position was "one China, one Taiwan". The two have nothing to do with each other. Therefore "one China" is not a problem.
As for the 1992 Consensus, Ko Wen-je said he did not expressly acknowledge it. He merely said he "understood and respected" the Mainland's position. He then re-emphasized his own "New Perspectives for 2015". But the term "1992 Consensus" was coined by Su Chi. The KMT followed suit. The CCP accepted it, and the 1992 Consensus become the political basis for cross-Strait exchanges. But here is the embarrassing part. The 1992 Consensus that Ko Wen-je expressed "understanding and respect" for, was the Mainland's version of the 1992 Consensus. So did Ko gain or lose? Ko Wen-je spoke of the 1992 Consensus. The CCP stressed "one China", while the KMT stressed "different interpretations". Tsai Ing-wen has hollowed out the "Republic of China" through backdoor listing. By the same token, Ko Wen-je's sophistry has hollowed out the 1992 Consensus. The Taiwan Affairs Office must now spell out the essence of the 1992 Consensus for Ko Wen-je, namely that "both sides of the Strait are part of one China". It must then give Ko the green light, and proceed to hold the Twin Cities Forum. Is this a case of seeing the light only at the end of one's rope?
The green camp has swiftly gained ground from the blue camp. Beijing desperately needs to get a handle on the situation before 2016. The highly popular Ko Wen-je may be able to transcend blue vs. green, Ko might provide just such a handle. Based on the experience of green camp county chiefs and city mayors, the Mainland has adopted a relatively pragmatic and flexible attitude for cross-strait exchanges at the local level. By contrast, Ko Wen-je has twice been asked to clarify his position on the 1992 Consensus. This means Beijing is holding firm on the bottom line. The Mainland has repeatedly sought to determine Ko Wen-je's actual stance. Clearly mutual trust is the key to cross-Strait exchanges.
Before the 1992 Consensus controvery arose, Ko Wen-je hemmed and hawed, enabling cross-Strait city to city exchanges to continue. The DPP refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus. When Tsai Ing-wen visited the United States, she avoided mention of the 1992 Consensus. She grudgingly pledged to "continue to seek common ground". But the Taiwan Affairs Office demanded answers. "What are cross-Strait relations? What is the basis for cross-Strait relations? How can peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations be maintained?" In fact these are questions the public on Taiwan should be asking.
Zhang Zhijun wants Ko Wen-je to take a stand on the 1992 Consensus. He is pleased that the Twin Cities Forum will proceed without a hitch. Meanwhile however, "all responsible parties must offer a clear response" on the core meaning of the 1992 consensus. Beijing has given Ko Wen-je a green light. But it has also laid a minefield for Tsai Ing-wen.
Ko Wen-je has squeaked by. Can Tsai Ing-wen?
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 11, 2015
Executive Summary: The Taipei-Shanghai "Twin Cities Forum" will convene in Shanghai on the 17th. Ko Wen-je will personally head a delegation and attend. Zhang Zhijun, Director of the Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office, said he "looks forward to it". Cross-Strait relations may undergo major changes in 2016. Yet city to city exchanges continue without interruption. That is significant. But when Beijing authorities are shaking Ko Wen-je's hand, they will be asking where Tsai Ing-wen stands. Tsai Ing-wen's feet remain mired in the quicksand of Taiwan independence. Never mind her invocation of the "constitutional framework of the Republic of China" as the basis for cross-Strait relations. Given the Twin Cities Forum dispute, will Tsai Ing-wen be able to "run the red light"?
Full Text Below:
The Taipei-Shanghai "Twin Cities Forum" will convene in Shanghai on the 17th. Ko Wen-je will personally head a delegation and attend. Zhang Zhijun, Director of the Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office, said he "looks forward to it". Cross-Strait relations may undergo major changes in 2016. Yet city to city exchanges continue without interruption. That is significant. But when Beijing authorities are shaking Ko Wen-je's hand, they will be asking where Tsai Ing-wen stands. Tsai Ing-wen's feet remain mired in the quicksand of Taiwan independence. Never mind her invocation of the "constitutional framework of the Republic of China" as the basis for cross-Strait relations. Given the Twin Cities Forum dispute, will Tsai Ing-wen be able to "run the red light"?
From Beijing's perspective, the Twin Cities Forum is a form of bridge building. The deep green Ko Wen-je may be useful in dealing with Tsai Ing-wen and cross-Strait relations after 2016. Will the cross-Strait collision result in more breathing space, or less?
In March, the Beijing authorities held a series of press conferences. Ko Wen-je declared, verbatim, that "one China is not a problem", and that "the two sides of the Strait are one family". The Beijing authorities expressed "appreciation". As a result, the Twin Cities Forum were not cancelled. But lo and behold, Ko Wen-je later claimed that the Mainland media "quoted him out of context". The Mainland authorities sometimes find Taiwan's political rhetoric slippery. This is especially true of Old School green camp reunification vs. independence rhetoric. Even statements made asked openly in the media, may involve countless loopholes. Therefore even though it is already August, and preparations for the Twin Cities Forum are nearly complete, the Deputy Mayor of Shanghai must now confirm Ko Wen-je's stance with the help of the Mainland media.
Beijing now wants confirmation on the 1992 Consensus. Before Ko Wen-je took office, he said "I have no idea what the 1992 Consensus is about". He even wondered why a "consensus without a consensus" from 20 years ago is the basis for current exchanges. Ko later corrected himself, and said he "understands and respects" the 1992 Consensus. He said he understood that cross-Strait exchanges are not international exchanges. Ko Wen-je's change in tune eliminated the political obstacles standing in the way of the Twin Cities Forum and his visit to the Mainland as mayor.
Regarding the Taiwan Affairs Office's expression of "appreciation", Ko Wen-je dismissed it as "diplomatic language". But Ko spoke to the Mainland media twice. Both times he indulged in political sophistry. In response to Beijing's "one China" stance, the United States said it "acknowledged it" and raised no objections. But it avoided saying that it "recognized it". Japan expressed "understanding and respect". Ko Wen-je said his "One China is not a problem" remark referred to the blue vs. green "consensus without consensus". He said the blue camp affirmed it, and the green camp was happy to go along. He said the green camp's position was "one China, one Taiwan". The two have nothing to do with each other. Therefore "one China" is not a problem.
As for the 1992 Consensus, Ko Wen-je said he did not expressly acknowledge it. He merely said he "understood and respected" the Mainland's position. He then re-emphasized his own "New Perspectives for 2015". But the term "1992 Consensus" was coined by Su Chi. The KMT followed suit. The CCP accepted it, and the 1992 Consensus become the political basis for cross-Strait exchanges. But here is the embarrassing part. The 1992 Consensus that Ko Wen-je expressed "understanding and respect" for, was the Mainland's version of the 1992 Consensus. So did Ko gain or lose? Ko Wen-je spoke of the 1992 Consensus. The CCP stressed "one China", while the KMT stressed "different interpretations". Tsai Ing-wen has hollowed out the "Republic of China" through backdoor listing. By the same token, Ko Wen-je's sophistry has hollowed out the 1992 Consensus. The Taiwan Affairs Office must now spell out the essence of the 1992 Consensus for Ko Wen-je, namely that "both sides of the Strait are part of one China". It must then give Ko the green light, and proceed to hold the Twin Cities Forum. Is this a case of seeing the light only at the end of one's rope?
The green camp has swiftly gained ground from the blue camp. Beijing desperately needs to get a handle on the situation before 2016. The highly popular Ko Wen-je may be able to transcend blue vs. green, Ko might provide just such a handle. Based on the experience of green camp county chiefs and city mayors, the Mainland has adopted a relatively pragmatic and flexible attitude for cross-strait exchanges at the local level. By contrast, Ko Wen-je has twice been asked to clarify his position on the 1992 Consensus. This means Beijing is holding firm on the bottom line. The Mainland has repeatedly sought to determine Ko Wen-je's actual stance. Clearly mutual trust is the key to cross-Strait exchanges.
Before the 1992 Consensus controvery arose, Ko Wen-je hemmed and hawed, enabling cross-Strait city to city exchanges to continue. The DPP refused to recognize the 1992 Consensus. When Tsai Ing-wen visited the United States, she avoided mention of the 1992 Consensus. She grudgingly pledged to "continue to seek common ground". But the Taiwan Affairs Office demanded answers. "What are cross-Strait relations? What is the basis for cross-Strait relations? How can peaceful and stable cross-Strait relations be maintained?" In fact these are questions the public on Taiwan should be asking.
Zhang Zhijun wants Ko Wen-je to take a stand on the 1992 Consensus. He is pleased that the Twin Cities Forum will proceed without a hitch. Meanwhile however, "all responsible parties must offer a clear response" on the core meaning of the 1992 consensus. Beijing has given Ko Wen-je a green light. But it has also laid a minefield for Tsai Ing-wen.
Ko Wen-je has squeaked by. Can Tsai Ing-wen?
聯合／柯文哲閃躲過關，蔡英文猶隔萬重山
2015-08-11 01:24:00 聯合報 聯合報社論
台北、上海《雙城論壇》確定十七日在上海登場，
在北京的立場，以《雙城論壇》搭橋，應對「墨綠」的柯文哲，
北京三月透過陸媒聯訪，由柯文哲照稿宣示「『一個中國』
這回，北京要求確認的就是「九二共識」。
對於國台辦的「讚賞」，柯文哲說那是「外交辭令」；不過，
對於「九二共識」，柯文哲並未明言承認，只說「瞭解和尊重」
面對台灣藍綠版圖的急遽消長，北京亟欲在二○一六年的新形勢前，
在「九二共識」前，柯文哲拐彎抹角，
現在，張志軍一方面表示注意到柯文哲對九二共識的表態，而欣慰《
柯文哲閃躲過關，但蔡英文能師其故技嗎？
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)