Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Returning to the UN vs. Joining the UN: The Fire Burns, The Heat Remains

Returning to the UN vs. Joining the UN: The Fire Burns, The Heat Remains
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 31, 2007

The Democratic Progressive Party's "Join the UN" Torch Relay and the Kuomintang's "Rejoin the UN" Bicycle Tour are each making their way around the island of Taiwan.

As everyone knows this is not really a disagreement over whether to "Rejoin the UN" or to "Join the UN." One: Most people approve of attempts to obtain representation in the UN. Two: Both the "Rejoin the UN" campaign and the "Join the UN" campaign are futile. Three: The result of any "Plebiscite to Join the UN" will be "Nothing will happen." In terms of results, there is no difference between the two campaigns. Therefore the "Join the UN" campaign and the "Rejoin the UN" campaign should not be a matter of controversy.

The "Join the UN" campaign and the "Rejoin the UN" campaign differ over four points. One: Whether to eventually eliminate the Republic of China and establish a Nation of Taiwan. Two: Whether to maintain the status quo, the international modus vivendi, and Taipei/Washington trust. Three: Whether the government may resort to unconstitutional and illegal means to hold a plebiscite/referendum. Four: Whether package-dealing the "Plebiscite to the Join the UN" with the Presidential Election will distort the election results.

Eventually a choice must be made between the Republic of China and a Nation of Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian says the Republic of China is neither here nor there. The Republic of China is already dead. The Republic of China altar will soon be torn down.

The Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence strategy could be described as a "smoke and fire" strategy. Its "Taiwan independence consciousness" is the fire. Its "Taiwanese consciousness" is the smoke. The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign is classic smoke and fire strategy. The DPP uses its "Nation of Taiwan" rhetoric to demand the "rectification of names, the authoring of a new constitution, and the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan." It asserts that the "Republic of China is already dead." It demands that the "altar of the Republic of China" be demolished. This rhetoric helps ignite the fires of Deep Green "Taiwan independence consciousness." Once these fires are burning, they will turn up the heat on issues such as "Taiwan is our Mother," "native political authority," "Taiwanese consciousness," "Taiwanese pathos," and "Taiwanese dignity." When the fires of "Taiwan independence consciousness" have reached the right temperature, people will no longer be able to see past the smoke of "Taiwanese consciousness." The frog in the pot will already be cooked. The fires of "Taiwan independence consciousness" will burn brighter and brighter. The smoke of "Taiwanese consciousness" will spread farther and farther, penetrating every nook and cranny.

It was necessary for the Kuomintang to counter the "Join the UN" campaign with its own "Rejoin the UN" campaign. Otherwise voters would have a choice of only one "Join the UN" initiative during the presidential election. The potential repercussions of that are unthinkable. But the Kuomintang is engaging the DPP in battle only at the level of "Taiwanese consciousness." It lacks the ability and courage to deal with the "Republic of China/Nation of Taiwan" issue at the level of "Taiwan independence consciousness." This is the principle reason it finds itself in its current dilemma. The Kuomintang has endorsed the "Taiwanese consciousness" embedded within the UN issue. It lacks the ability to warn people that the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is merely a "Taiwan independence Plebiscite" veneer, applied to a "Taiwan independence consciousness" core. The Kuomintang wants to take refuge within the smoke generated by the Democratic Progressive Party's flames of "Taiwanese consciousness." It is even helping the Democratic Progressive Party fan the flames, accelerating their spread. The Kuomintang wants to jump on the Democratic Progressive Party's bandwagon, in order to avoid criticism. It lacks the ability and courage to extinguish the flames that are generating the smoke.

If one fails to extinguish the flames, how can one disperse the smoke? Conversely, if the flames cannot burn, how can there be smoke?

The "Plebiscite to Join/Rejoin the UN" campaign has four major problems. The "Nation of Taiwan/Republic of China" option lies at the heart of the dispute between the Blue and Green camps. The Democratic Progressive Party must prove that a Nation of Taiwan is preferable to the Republic of China. The Kuomintang must prove that the Republic of China is preferable to a Nation of Taiwan. The Democratic Progressive Party must prove that a "Nation of Taiwan" is beneficial to its "Taiwanese consciousness." The Kuomintang must prove that the "Republic of China" is beneficial to "Taiwanese consciousness." As matters stand, the Democratic Progressive Party's "Nation of Taiwan" fire is burning brightly and generating a great deal of heat. The Kuomintang meanwhile, seems incapable of generating the same heat for the Republic of China. It seems to think that as long as it fans the Democratic Progressive Party's flames of "Taiwanese consciousness," then any heat generated somehow becomes the Kuomintang's heat. It doesn't realize that since these were flames started by the Democratic Progressive Party, it is merely helping the Democratic Progressive Party's flame burn brighter. The Democratic Progressive Party need only declare that "There is a Blue/Green consensus on the issue of Joining the UN" to coopt the the Kuomintang and make it look as if it has endorsed the Democratic Progressive Party's initiative. If the Kuomintang cannot light its own fire, how can it generate its own heat?

The entire scenario is being stage-managed by the Democratic Progressive Party, using its "smoke and fire strategy." Look at the way government-owned and privately-owned banks and credit unions lined up to contribute to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN." That's how far the Democratic Progressive Party's artificially concocted "Taiwanese consciousness" has infiltrated society. That's how it has hijacked voters and promoted its "Taiwan independence Effect." The Kuomintang has fanned the smoke, but it has refused to put out the fire. This has led to a situation in which the fire burns, and the heat remains.

If the Kuomintang can't tell us why the Republic of China is preferable to a Nation of Taiwan, then what platform is it running on? Why should we vote for it on election day? If you can't light your own fire, how can you generate your own heat?

返聯vs.入聯:火不滅,煙不會散!
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.31 03:24 am

民進黨的「入聯」聖火接力,與國民黨的「返聯」青春鐵馬,正在分頭繞行台灣。

眾所周知,這其實不是「返聯」與「入聯」的爭議。一、因為,若將「入聯」或「返聯」視為政治意念,國人皆贊同,沒有異議;二、「返聯」不會實現,「入聯」最後也「什麼事都不會發生」,若論效果,二者亦無不同。所以,「入聯」與「返聯」不應當成為爭議。

「入聯」與「返聯」的爭議是在:一、這是終究要不要消滅中華民國的問題,也就是另建台灣國能否救台灣的問題;二、這也是應否衝撞「維持現狀」的國際均衡架構的問題,包括應否維持台美戰略信任的問題;三、這也是政府可否以違憲違法的種種手段來推動公投的問題;四、這又是可否「公投綁大選」而導致扭曲大選結果的問題。

以上四大問題的核心皆在:這是終究須在中華民國與台灣國之間作一選擇的問題。陳水扁說:中華民國是什麼碗糕,中華民國已經亡了,中華民國的供桌很快就將拆掉。

民進黨的台獨戰略,可以稱作「煙與火」戰略。「台獨意識」是火,「台灣意識」是煙。此次「入聯公投」的操作即屬「煙火戰略」的典型架構。以不斷加重口味的「台灣國」論述燒起「火」來,諸如「要正名、要制憲、要台獨」、「中華民國已亡」,「拆掉中華民國供桌」等,這是點燃深綠「台獨意識」薪炭的「火」;「火」燒起來後,就開始搧「台灣是我們的母親」、「本土政權」、「台灣意識」、「台灣悲情」或「台灣尊嚴」的「煙」。等到「台灣意識」的「煙」愈來愈大,人們已看不到「台獨意識」的「火」。「台灣意識」的「煙」將選民薰醉,冷水煮青蛙,「台獨意識」的「火」也就愈燒愈旺;相對地,「台灣意識」的「煙」也漸漫漸遠,無孔不入。

國民黨以「返聯」制衡「入聯」是必要手段,否則到大選時若只領「入聯」一張公投票,情勢殊難想像。但是,國民黨只在「台灣意識」層次作戰,卻無能又無膽處理「中華民國/台灣國」的「台獨意識」層次,則是如今陷入困境的主因。國民黨贊同「聯合國議題」的「台灣意識」;卻無能耐以其論述讓國人警覺「入聯公投」其實是「台獨公投」的「台獨意識」。如此一來,國民黨形同躲入民進黨「台灣意識」的「煙」裡,甚至還幫著民進黨去搧「煙」,加速加大其擴散。國民黨似乎只想躲在「煙」裡,拿香跟拜,只求民進黨打不到他;卻無能亦無膽設法用水潑熄藏在煙裡的那一盆「台獨之火」。

火不滅,煙怎會散?反過來說,火燒不起來,怎會有煙?

前述「入(返)聯公投」的「四大問題」中,「台灣國/中華民國」是藍綠兩邊的核心火種。民進黨須證明台灣國有勝過中華民國的優越性,國民黨則須證明中華民國有勝過台灣國的優越性;民進黨須證明「台灣國」有益於「台灣意識」,國民黨則須證明「中華民國」始對「台灣意識」有利。然而,現在的情勢是:民進黨把「台灣國」的「火」燒得很旺,煙也很大;國民黨卻似無能把中華民國的火種燒出應有的熱度,以為只要跟著民進黨搧「台灣意識」的煙即可。其實,國民黨搧的煙,原是民進黨燒起來的煙,甚至是幫著民進黨在搧煙。民進黨只憑一句「入聯是藍綠共識」,就可將國民黨吞沒在民進黨的「煙霧」中。國民黨自己的火燒不起來,怎會有自己的煙?

整個情勢已被民進黨的「煙火戰略」主導。只要看公民營行庫一列排開捐助「入聯公投」,即可知「台灣意識」在民進黨操作下已經無孔不入地偽裝了、夾帶了並傳導了「台獨效應」。國民黨這種「搧煙不滅火」的手法,已經導致「火不滅,煙不散」的後果,不可收拾。

如果國民黨說不出「中華民國優於台灣國」的道理,憑什麼選,更憑何勝選?沒有自己的火,怎會有自己的煙?

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Chang'e-1: Seven Tenths Politics, Three Tenths Military Development

Chang'e-1: Seven Tenths Politics, Three Tenths Military Development
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 30, 2007

On the morning of October 24, the Green camp launched its "Join the UN Torch Relay." The Blue camp launched its "Return to the UN Bicycle Tour." On the evening of the same day, the Red Camp, i.e., the Chinese Communist Party, launched its Chang'e-1 satellite, which successfully orbited the moon. While political parties on Taiwan were mired in endless national identity struggles, the Chinese mainland's strategic might took a quantum leap.

The Chinese Communist Party succeeded in launching its Chang'e-1 satellite. However it did not characterize it as a "Great Leap Forward" for the military, the way it did for nuclear bombs, incontinental ballistic missiles, and man-made satellites a number of years ago. Now it faces international concerns about the militarization of outer space. Therefore it constantly emphasizes its peaceful uses. To claim that Chang'e-1 has no military function would be a lie. The Chang'e-1's exploration of the moon is a prelude to the construction of a space station. It will be followed by an outer space control center and outer space weapons deployment.

What's noteworthy is not the Chang'e-1's military implications, but the Chinese Communist Party's change in international and cross-Straits strategy. The Chinese Communist Party no longer bluffs and blusters. It now emphasizes the soft power exemplified by its exploration of the moon. This does not mean the Chinese Communist Party no longer values military development. Its military expenditures have increased in double digits for the past 20 years. Obviously it is continuing to develop its military capability, It is merely doing so at a lower key. For example, early this year the Chinese Communist Party successfully test-fired its first antisatellite missile, becoming the third nation besides America and Russia with this capability. Over the course of last year it introduced the J-10 multirole fighter plane, the nuclear powered Type 094 ballistic missile submarine and Type 093 attack submarine, the East Wind 20 medium range ballistic missile and other new weapons. These reveal that the Chinese Communist Party is also increasing its hard power.

By contrast, during this year's National Day celebration, the Democratic Progressive Party government held a troop review that was not a troop review. It showed off the new generation Hsiung Feng HF-3 anti-ship missile and Tien Kung TK-3 surface-to-air missile. It also planned to debut the Hsiung Feng HF-2 cruise missile, but the US expressed concerns and exercised its veto. A few days later word spread of Taipei's intent to develop nuclear weapons. The international media considered these moves toward Taiwan independence by the Democratic Progressive Party as acts of defiance against the Chinese Communist Party. But to everyones' surprise, Hu Jintao not only did not reply in kind, he offered Taipei an olive branch, in the form of a peace agreement. This immediately created the impression that the CCP was pursuing peace, while Taiwan was rattling its sabers. Chen Shui-bian seemed to be making a public declaration that he had decided to rely on military force to promote Taiwan independence.

This sudden contrast left the impression that the Chinese Communist Party was promoting peace and discouraging militarism, that Taiwan was the party escalating the conflict, promoting militarism, and discouraging peace. The Democratic Progressive Party's "troop review that was not a troop review" and the Chinese Communist Party's "Chang'e's Flight to the Moon" make us wonder. Should Taiwan adopt a strategic posture of "Taiwan independence/balance of military terror?" Or should it adopt a strategic posture of "Non Taiwan independence/military assistance?"

If one wants Taiwan independence, one must increase one's military might. About this one need have no doubt. If, on the other hand, one eschews Taiwan independence, then military force can be relegated to a secondary role. About this one also need have no doubt. If one wants to adopt a strategic posture of "Taiwan independence political strategy/balance of military terror," one has two choices: The first is the US's Cold War strategy. Escalate the cost of the Balance of Terror. Bankrupt the Soviet Union by means of arms race. The second is North Korea's current strategy of "nuclear blackmail." Trade peace gestures for international aid and US recognition. But the ROC's wealth is diminishing day by day. It can't even pay for educational reform. Where is it going to find the means to engage in an arms race with the Chinese Communist Party? If it chooses to adopt North Korea's strategy of nuclear brinksmanship, when the US won't even allow the open display of two ballistic missiles, how can it possibly allow Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons?

Besides, due to conflicting views of national identity, troops on Taiwan "don't know whom they're fighting for, or what they're fighting for." Politicians have been shortening soldiers' terms of enlistment in response the public's anti-war psychology. Under such conditions, Taiwan lacks the wherewithal for a military solution. Political infighting in recent years has deeply wounded public morale. This has dealt national defense a grievous blow from which it will not soon recover.

The government on Taiwan cannot possibly carry on an arms race against the Chinese Communist Party. A policy of nuclear confronation would be an unwise move. Taiwan should return to its "seven tenths politics, three tenths military development" cross-Straits policy framework. It should rely primarily upon enlightened policies, and only secondarily on military might. Put plainly, if the government pursues Taiwan independence, it must begin an arms race. Merely playing at Taiwan independence, merely screaming Taiwan independence while not actually implementing Taiwan independence, is highly disadvantageous. By contrast, if one eschews Taiwan independence, one might need to increase one's armaments, but one can at least avoid a suicidal arms race.

Seven tenths politics, and three tenths military development is still the ROC's best strategy for dealing with cross-Straits relations.

解讀嫦娥:台灣仍應七分政治三分軍事
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.30 03:54 am

十月二十四日晨,藍綠陣營在博愛特區分別發起入聯聖火及返聯鐵馬活動;是日傍晚,中共發射「嫦娥一號」繞月衛星成功。當台灣仍陷於連國家認同都無共識的困境,中共的國際勢位又見升高了一個台階。

中共成功發射「嫦娥一號」繞月球衛星,但不似當年將「兩彈一星」喻為軍事躍進的具體指標,如今面對國際質疑其太空軍事化意圖,卻反而不斷強調和平用途。若謂「嫦娥一號」沒有軍事目的,那是欺世的外交語言。「嫦娥一號」對月探測,實係中共未來建立太空站的前奏,續曲則是太空指揮中心及太空武器的部署。

值得關注的不是「嫦娥」的軍事意圖,而是中共國際戰略與兩岸戰略的變化。中共不再「耀武揚威」,改而強調探勘月球能源的「軟實力」;但這不表示中共不重視軍事發展,近二十年兩位數增加的軍事預算,顯見其持續發展軍力,只不過轉向檯面下低調進行。例如,今年初中共成功試射反衛星導彈,成為美、俄之外,第三個具備此一能力的國家,並在去年底以來陸續公布殲十戰機、○九四及○九三型核動力潛艦、東風廿一型中程導彈等新型武器,凸顯中共也在大幅擴張「硬實力」。

相對而言,民進黨政府也在今年國慶,辦了一場沒有大閱官的閱兵,並秀出雄風三型和天弓三型等新一代武器,原先要露臉的雄二E巡弋飛彈,則因美國關切臨時喊卡;不數日更傳出準備發展核武的消息。這一連串動作被不少國際媒體解讀為民進黨為推動台獨,向中共展示姿態;但是,未料胡錦濤非但未作針對性的回應,反而丟出兩岸簽署「和平協議」的橄欖枝,頓時在國際上形成中共追求和平,台灣卻炫示武力的對比。陳水扁似在向國際宣示,他已有憑藉武力推動台獨的決心。

此一對照,相當突兀。似乎呈現出中共「揚和抑武」的姿態;但台灣卻有升高衝突、「揚武抑和」的意味。如今,在台灣「國防表演」及中共「嫦娥奔月」後,似應冷靜思考:台灣究竟應採「台獨政略/軍力恐怖均衡」的戰略架構,或採「非台獨政略/軍力輔佐」的戰略架構?

欲台獨,必須加強軍力,此點不必置疑;倘採「非台獨」的政略,軍事即可居輔佐角色,這也是情理中事。若欲採「台獨政略/軍力恐怖均衡」的架構,或有兩種模式可採:一是冷戰時期美國以升高「恐怖平衡」成本,拖垮蘇聯的「軍備競賽」模式;另一則是北韓以「核訛詐」換取國際援助與美國承認的模式。但台灣綜合國力相對日下,連教改經費都吃緊,哪來與中共軍備競賽的足夠國力?若採北韓戰爭邊緣的「核訛詐」模式,則美國連雄二飛彈都不准露臉,豈會同意台灣發展核武?

何況,由於國家認同分裂,台灣軍隊充滿不知「為何而戰,為誰而戰」的低迷氛圍;且政客又不斷縮短役期,亦反映民間反戰、避戰心理。在這樣的社會因素下,台灣實在已無挑起軍事解決的條件;而近年政客內鬥對士氣民心造成的莫大傷害,更儼然已成國防上的不治之症,恐已復原無日。

台灣沒有可能與中共進行「軍備競賽」,台灣若走持有核武的偏鋒亦顯非明智之舉。台灣的兩岸政策,仍應回歸「七分政治、三分軍事」的比例與架構。以正確的「政略」為主,以必要軍備的「軍略」為輔。明白地說,倘採台獨政略,即必須走向軍備競賽之途,否則即是「鬧台獨/不敢台獨」的假台獨,對台灣極為不利;相對而言,若採「非台獨」的「政略」,固然仍須加強必要軍備,卻可避免走上軍備競賽的自殺之途。

七分政治,三分軍事,仍是台灣在處理兩岸關係時的最佳戰略。

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Role of Hsieh Chih Wei in the Democratic Progressive Party

The Role of Hsieh Chih Wei in the Democratic Progressive Party
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 29, 2007

Whether the event is the Democratic Progressive Party's "Join the UN Torch Relay" or an election rally, the person guaranteed to make the biggest splash is Hsieh Chih-wei. His popularity exceeds even that of Chen Shui-bian, Frank Hsieh, and Su Tseng-chang.

Hsieh Chih-wei would be well-suited for the role of variety show host. He would do a terrific job of livening things up. He might sing Karaoke, or take the lead on the dance floor. Every guest would be sure to have a roaring good time. But Hsieh Chih-wei is not a variety show host. He is the Chief of the Government Information Office. He is the government's top spokesman.

As the government's number one mouthpiece, Hsieh Chih-wei fills a vital role within the Chen regime. When Chen Shui-bian attends a summit with an ally, and puts his foot in his mouth by asking Palau's president "Whom did you embrace in bed last night?", Hsieh Chih-wei's job is to break into an impromptu dance or rap song, drawing attention away from Chen's faux pas. But as Government Information Officer, Hsieh Chih-wei has another job. To provoke opposition party lawmakers to such fits of anger that they shout "Sit down! You sit down!" His job is to demonstrate how the executive branch "checks and balances" the legislative branch. He has done such a great job his colleague Shih Mao-ling gave Hsieh a big thumbs up.

And no wonder. In reference to Hsieh Chih-wei, former Central Election Committee Chairman Huang Shih-cheng said: "A person like this is no different from a monkey at the zoo pretending to be a government official."

When Hsieh Chih-wei crossed swords with NCC Chairman Su Yung-chin, he did not address legitimate issues such as the constitutionality of the NCC within the legal framework of the ROC. Instead he bullied Su over irrelevancies regarding transitional justice in a reunified Germany. When Hsieh Chih-wei responded to questions about the post office's illegal stamping of "Join the UN" slogans on personal correpsondence, he did not address the legitimacy of the policy or encroachments on the people's right to privacy. He trivialized the affair by inviting an American English teacher on Taiwan to discuss the matter of English usage over tea. What would Huang Shih-chen say watching such a thug in a position of power? Would he refer to Hsieh as a "mu hou er guan" ("a monkey in a suit") incapable of maintaining the illusion of humanity?

Is this really the image the Democratic Progressive Party wants to broadcast to the world? Older generation Democratic Progressive Party officials such as current premier Chang Chun-hsiung, confronted with a verbal confrontation between Hsieh Chih-wei and an opposition lawmaker, quietly urged Hsieh, "Don't argue any more. Go and sit down." Chang hoped to maintain an image of rationality for the ruling administration. Yet Frank Hsieh had nothing but praise for the controversial Hsieh Chih-wei at a public rally, referring to him as "an outstanding GIO Chief," and expressed concern that the Blue camp wanted to force Hsieh Chih-wei out of office. Does Frank Hsieh really not know that many voters hope Hsieh Chih-wei's simian antics will take Frank Hsieh down with him?

Ever since DPP legislator Lin Chung-mo gained fame by insulting Sisy Chen with sexist vulgarisms, the "Three Stooges" (Lin Chung-mo, Tsai Chi-fang, and Hou Shui-sheng) have become immensely popular within the Democratic Progressive Party, and simultaneously the focus of outside criticism. The role of the Three Stooges was originally to generate controversy concerning certain topics, to underscore the Democratic Progressive Party's "grass roots" nature. Their uncouth language and manners are nothing parents would want to inculcate in their own children. But the Three Stooges have come to fill a certain role in the party. When Chen Tang-shan referred to Singapore as "a nation the size of a piece of snot" and accused it of "fondling China's balls," he violated all norms of diplomatic etiquette. When Tsai Chi-fang accused Luo Wen-chia and his wife as "putting on a show" and "singing a duet," he ripped away the hypocritical mask of intraparty comradeship and ethics. Former GIO Chief Yao Wen-chi flaunted a supercilious "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" manner. This "evolved" into current GIO Chief Hsieh Chih-wei's simian antics. This process swiftly undermined any standards of ethics or decorum established over many long years.

The Democratic Progressive Party has undergone a transformation. It now belongs to the "Three Stooges," to "Hsieh Chih-wei," and their ilk. The character of the party has changed from "to know shame is courage," to "to know no shame is courage."

When the anti-corruption movement was in full swing, many citizens took to the streets, not for the Blue camp or the Green camp, not for reunification or for independence, but for the traditional Chinese virtues of "Propriety, Honor, Integrity, and Conscience." Alas, the Three Stooges and Hsieh Chih-wei have set a new tone for society. They hold such virtues in contempt. Taiwan has forsaken civilized rules of conduct, and the public has become accustomed to the political antics of Lin Chung-mo and Tsai Chi-fang. The term "LP" ("balls") has become an in word. Hsieh Chih-wei's impromptu performances of rap music are all the rage. Under the circumstances, "watching monkeys perform in a zoo" perfectly describes Taiwan's politics.

Society has degenerated to the point where all that matters is Wu Shu-chen's diamond ring from Tiffany, Chen Shui-bian's off-key rendition of "Ode to the Republic of China," or where to find a gourmet dish of abalone. What room is there for serious topics such as truth and justice, right and wrong, constitutionalism and the rule of law? Don't be deceived by the hoopla over the "Join the UN" campaign. The Democratic Progressive Party hopes that public's attitude toward the democratic process will be: "Is it really so serious?" Enter Hsieh Chih-wei. The function of officials like Hsieh Chih-wei is to transform serious issues of state into the antics of monkeys at a zoo.

民進黨的「謝志偉化」
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.29 04:47 am

無論在民進黨的入聯慢跑路上或造勢晚會中,鋒頭最健就屬謝志偉,人氣猶勝扁謝蘇。

如果有人找謝志偉去當同樂會的主持人,他一定很稱職,會把場子弄得很熱鬧。又或者和他一起去唱KTV,由他帶頭又唱又跳,肯定會讓每個來賓都很high。但謝志偉畢竟不是同樂會主持人。他是中華民國的新聞局長,政府發言人。

謝志偉作為政府發言人,他的功能是這樣的:當陳水扁參加友邦高峰會議,忘情追問帛琉總統「昨夜床上擠的是誰」而令全場尷尬無言時,謝志偉立刻扭腰擺臀,當場來段饒舌歌舞,即時移轉了氣氛。而謝志偉作為內閣一員的新聞局長,他的功能又是這樣的:把在野黨立委氣得大喊「下去,你下去」,充分展現了行政權「制衡」立法權的勝利,讓同僚施茂林佩服得當場豎起大拇指。

也難怪,前中選會主委黃石城談起謝志偉,是這麼說的:「這種人當官,跟請動物園的猴子來表演當官有什麼不一樣?」

謝志偉和NCC主委蘇永欽過招,不是辯論體制定位和憲政法理的正經事,而是用同為「留德青山在」等輕薄言行欺之君子以方。謝志偉回答郵戳蓋入聯的質疑,不是討論政策正當性或人民關切隱私權受侵犯的議題,而是「歡迎打電話找我討論英文」。以如此江湖風格身居廟堂,黃石城想說的莫非「沐猴而冠」?

但這真正是民進黨所希望傳達出的理念象徵和人物標竿嗎?民進黨內老一輩如當今閣揆張俊雄,面對謝志偉和立委纏鬥的場合,屢次輕聲勸阻要他「不要說了,你先回去」,似乎希望保持住一點執政團隊的理性形象。但是,對於高度爭議性的謝志偉,謝長廷卻在造勢大會中公開讚揚為「表現極傑出的新聞局長」,並擔心藍軍想把謝志偉搞下台。難道謝長廷不知,多少選民巴不得謝志偉的猴戲就這樣演下去,直到拖垮謝長廷為止。

民進黨自林重謨當年以鄙言辱罵陳文茜一炮而紅之後,迅速崛起的「三寶化」現象,一度成為輿論批評焦點。三寶的作用本來也只是製造特定議題,放大民進黨草根性的那一面特徵;其言行舉止,不會是任何為人父母者希望子女培養文明素質的示範對象。但「三寶化」現象逐漸發揮了一些作用:像陳唐山指新加坡「鼻屎大的國家」、「捧中國卵葩」那樣的語言,打破任何外交禮儀的界限;像蔡啟芳指羅文嘉夫妻「嘜擱裝啦」、「演雙簧」的那般攻擊,扯破黨內倫理和同志情誼的假面具;像新聞局長從姚文智那樣「一皮天下無難事」的作風,「進化」到謝志偉一般又唱又跳、「猴戲化」政府發言人的角色;這一段過程,快速淡化了一個社會多少年才累積出的政治規範界限和行為羞恥底線。

從「三寶化」而「謝志偉化」,民進黨把士節風骨從「知恥近乎勇」,顛覆成「無恥才是勇」。

反貪腐運動風起雲湧之時,多少民眾走上街頭,不為藍也不為綠,無關統也無關獨,所想的不過是喚回「禮義廉恥」一點基本的做人規矩而已。但「三寶化」和「謝志偉化」蔚為風氣,擺明了就是要瞧不起那些規矩。台灣喪失此文明規矩之後,民眾漸漸也就習慣了林重謨和蔡啟芳的問政表演,講起LP二字變成一種時尚語詞,看見謝志偉的饒舌歌舞覺得很爽,用「看動物園猴子表演」的那種娛樂感觀來評量台灣的政治。

公民社會的民主意識一旦淪落到這種地步時,市井談笑之間論吳淑珍的蒂芙妮鑽戒、陳水扁唱「中華民國頌」是否五音不全、「三井宴」的鮑魚餐找機會也去吃看看等等,也就再沒有什麼公理正義、是非曲直、憲政體制等議題可嚴肅看待的餘地了。不要看入聯議題搞得轟轟烈烈,民進黨對所希望於老百姓認知民主的程度其實正是「有那麼嚴重嗎」;而這種將政治猴戲化的本事,正是謝志偉諸人的作用吧!

Sunday, October 28, 2007

State-owned Banks "Facilitate" the Join the UN Campaign

State-owned Banks "Facilitate" the Join the UN Campaign, but the Financial Supervisory Commission merely looks on
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 25, 2007

A row of well-dressed men in expensive business suits, stands on the floor of the Legislative Yuan. These men are CEOs and general managers of state-owned banks and credit unions. They have been summoned here by Members of the Legislature. These officials are guilty of turning funds entrusted to their care over to the Executive Yuan, allowing the ruling DPP to misuse these funds paying for its "Join the UN" campaign. They now stand obediently before the legislature.

State-owned banks and credit unions are well recognized "golden rice bowls." Which of these officials, each of whom has clawed his way to the rank of CEO or general manager, isn't a player? Yet here they stand, hemming and hawing, with nothing to say. They must endure this humiliation because they know they have behaved dishonorably. Grilling by legislators reveals that most of these officials, using "advertising expenditures" as a pretext, turned funds under their management over to the Government Information Office, for the purpose of promoting the ruling DPP regime's "Join the UN" campaign. The Taiwan Cooperative Bank and the Taiwan Business Bank, for example, invited major borrowers to participate in a series of Democratic Progressive Party fundraising dinners. Even the First Commercial Bank, which has already been privatized, donated 10 million NT to the National Cultural Association, in the name of "Pubic Relations to Promote the Image of the Nation."

These highly partisan expenditures were clearly intended to help the Democratic Progressive Party's election efforts. They were illegitimate on the face of it, and could only be made under false pretenses. They violate the revenue and expenditure provisions of the Budget Law for state-owned banks and credit unions. They exceed the limits of authority for professional managers of such institutions. Most of these banks and credit unions are publicly held companies. Not only must they must answer to their depositors, they must also answer to small shareholders. What responsible financier is willing to ignore profits and scatter money to the winds? And we haven't even mentioned the issue of legal liability. Legislators fulminated, demanding that these funds to be deducted directly from these CEOs' and general managers' year end bonuses. In fact, these bank managers are already under suspicion for diverting funds and violating the public trust.

These managers of state-owned bank and credit union managers, under pressure from "higher authorities," did not dare speaking freely. Minister of Finance He Chih-chin looked as if he were under duress. He mumbled some vague generalities about "Administrative Guidance by a Comprehensive Executive Yuan Plan." This is not the first time Minister He has been outside the loop. Public announcements of important government plans such as tax reform were made by Conference for Economic Reconstruction Chairman He Mei-yue. When questioned, Minister He said he knew nothing about the matter. He Chih-chin's role is to provide a scholarly image for the Ministry of Finance. The fact that he has no real power has been public knowledge for a long time. The Financial Supervisory Commission is the domestic financial organization responsible for oversight and control of the nation's domestic financial institutions. It stands on the front lines. It is the entity that most ought to step forward and take responsibility for the scandal. But what are Chairman Hu Sheng-cheng and current Bank Bureau Vice Chairman Chang Hsiu-lien doing at this very moment?

In recent years, the Financial Supervisory Commission has often been criticized for doing too much. Many of its committee chairmen, committee members, and bureau chiefs are mired in legal scandals. The Rebar Group controversy led judges to suspect that Financial Supervisory Commission managers had been making illegal loans. The public still has a vivid memory of the presiding judge blasting the Financial Supervisory Commission for dereliction of duty and patronage. Faced with such accusations, the Financial Supervisory Commission has vigorously and resolutely sworn to establish strict controls. During the past half year it has helped prosecute quite a few domestic bank managers. Bank managers now jump at the slightest sound. For public financial institutions to turn over funds to designated political organizations or political parties, under the guise of business expenses, and to expect not to be investigated, fined, and prosecuted, is inconceivable.

And yet now, before the public eye, in broad daylight, we see banks collectively donating money to the "Join the UN" campaign, inviting major borrowers to wine and dine Democratic Progressive Party candidates. We see bank chairmen of the board and general managers being called onto the floor of the Legislative Yuan and being forced to stand at attention, receive tongue-lashings, while struggling to explain themselves. Can Hu Sheng-cheng and Chang Hsiu-lien really turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to these outrages? These public banks and credit unions, which take their orders from major stockholders of public shares, have harmed the interests of many smaller and younger shareholders. Isn't the Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center supposed to be watching over such abuses? Officials of the judiciary reproached the Financial Supervisory Commission for official patronage, for allowing favored banks to violate the law. Yet now we see with our own eyes "guanxi" between the Executive Yuan, the Financial Supervisory Commission, and state owned banks and credit unions. How are we supposed to feel?

A number of years ago, when the Legislative Yuan interpellated Minister of Economic Affairs Chung Tsai-yi, she was forced to admit she had no idea what was happening all around her, and to hurriedly resigned after only 40 days in office. The public regarded the incident as a joke. But at least the government had the decency to admit its inadequacies, and conduct itself correspondingly. The apparent cluelessness of our current Minister of Finance is far more shocking. Standing alongside a row of CEOs and general managers in the Legislative Yuan, officials of our current Financial Supervisory Commission apparently need to have their mistakes pointed out to them in court by a judge. In fact they are perfectly aware of the illicit activities of state-owned banks and credit unions. But they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Political appointees and professional managers alike have suffered humiliation and abuse from the ruling DPP. Do they really intend to cling to their jobs without giving a thought to their dignity? No wonder some people are nostalgic for Chung Tsai-yi.

銀行「援交」入聯:金管會豈可坐視?
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.25 03:39 am

立法院裡一字排開,個個西裝筆挺大有來頭,不是董事長就是總經理。這是公營行庫高層被立法委員召喚「出列」的景象,凡「上繳」經費給行政院辦入聯宣傳的都被點名,結果就出現了這些董事長、總經理乖乖排隊站好的畫面。

公營行庫都是老字號金飯碗,能升上老總、老董的,誰沒有兩把刷子?如今在立法院裡遭此羞辱,卻多半訥訥說不出話來,因為他們做的事確實不光彩。立委質詢指出,多家公股行庫以「業務廣告費」之名,將銀行預算上繳新聞局辦入聯;合庫、台企銀等銀行則是接連邀約貸款大戶參加民進黨候選人出席的餐宴,有拉票和選舉募款之嫌;又有如已經民營化的第一銀行,最近也捐款一千萬元給文化總會,用以「辦理提升國家形象宣傳活動經費」。

這些政治性極高、擺明了替民進黨助選的經費開銷,師出無名,必須挪用預算。以公營行庫的收支原則來說,是違反了預算法規定;以公司治理的規範來說,是違背了專業經理人的職務權限;甚至以這些行庫多已上市的事實來評斷,不但要向存戶負責,還應向小市民股東們負責。算盤精明的金融家,誰肯如此不計利潤、向外撒錢?更何況其中還有法律責任。立委開罵,指這些款項應直接從董事長和總經理的年終獎金中扣除;其實,這些銀行主管恐已涉及挪用預算和背信的嫌疑。

公營行庫主管受「上級」壓力而有口難言,財政部長何志欽好像也身不由己,模糊回答了「行政院整體施政方案宣導」等籠統話語。何部長對重要政策處於狀況外,不是第一次;就連政府擬進行稅賦改革等大事,也是由經建會主委何美玥對外宣布,何部長在記者詢問時猶不知所云。何志欽被放在檯面上扮演著學者形象、卻無指揮實權的財政部長,受議論已久;這是另一層面的問題了。而最應出來管事的金管會,在第一線上負責監理國內金融機構的主管機關,主委胡勝正和身兼銀行局長的副主委張秀蓮,此時此刻所做何事?

金管會近年來的行事,總在過猶不及之間遭到批評。除了多位主委、委員、局長等人身陷違法醜聞之外,力霸集團風暴引起法官質疑金檢主管長年縱容違法放貸,審判長當庭痛罵金管會官員失職和圖利的那一幕,社會記憶猶新。金管會受此指責,一度雷厲風行,想要建立嚴厲控管的形象,近半年來將國內銀行主管移送檢調的案例委實不少,也造成風聲鶴唳的效果。可以想像,如果任何一家上市的金融機構,膽敢把業務費用「援交」給特定團體或政黨,不被金管會嚴查、開罰、送辦才怪。

如今在眾目睽睽之下,卻見這麼多家銀行集體發生「捐錢搞入聯」的圖利事實,出面邀約大戶和民進黨候選人餐敘的用心亦昭然若揭;以至於銀行的董事長和總經理們被叫到立法院「罰站」、聽訓,亦無能自辯。則胡勝正和張秀蓮真能對此視若無睹、不加聞問嗎?不僅如此,這些上市行庫聽命於大股東公股的指揮,因而損害了諸多市民小股東的利益,則證券投資人保護中心不應出面管事嗎?當初在法庭上訓斥金管會官員圖利、放縱特定銀行違法的司法人員,如今眼見「行政院—金管會—公營行庫」之間發展出扭曲的「關係人」互動,又該是何種感想?

想當年,宗才怡在立法院裡被質詢得不知所云,經濟部長幹了四十幾天就倉皇下台,被輿論視為笑話,卻也可見其時官場尚有「知難而退」的行為界限。如今的財政部長在其位而不知所云的程度更加驚人,「率領」了一隊董事長和總經理在立法院裡排排站;金管會官員在法庭裡受到法官「指正」,如今對公營行庫的不當行徑絕對心知肚明,卻不能管也不敢管。從政務官到專業經理人,受盡難堪,受盡政治蹧蹋,卻難道繼續在位而不顧尊嚴嗎?也難怪有人說,真懷念宗才怡。

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Pig Snout Plebiscite: The Plebiscite to Join the UN Self-destructs

The Pig Snout Plebiscite: The Plebiscite to Join the UN Self-destructs
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2007

Annette Lu noted that the logo for the Plebiscite to Join the UN campaign looks remarkably like a pig's snout. As a result some people began referring to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" as the "Pig Snout Plebiscite."

Superficially, it would seem that Chen Shui-bian has successfully demagogued the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" issue. But because the campaign has been conducted in an uncivilized, unconstitutional, illegal, and anti-democratic manner that violates human rights, he has undercut its legitimacy and hastened its demise. The political image of the Plebiscite to Join the UN has been badly tarnished.

Chen Shui-bian should beware of overkill, i.e., a promotional effort that produces diminishing returns because it repels rather than attracts. He should not provoke political moderates into snorting contemptuously: "Pig Snout Plebiscite!"

The Plebiscite to Join the UN began with a positive image. It gave vent to accumulated public frustration. It championed the rights and interests of citizens of the ROC on Taiwan. These were among the plebiscite's selling points. But the Chen regime has resorted to means that cannot be justified. It has ordered the post office to stamp "Join the UN" slogans on private correspondence. It has coerced civil servants to participate in petition drives. It has embezzled public funds to underwrite "Join the UN" campaign activities. It has printed "Join the UN" slogans on sales slips. It intends to "package deal" the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" with the 2008 Presidential Election It intends to force voters to accept plebisite ballots along with presidential election ballots, whether they want them or not. It is violating the Rule of Law and the principle of administrative neutrality. Even the "Join the UN Torch Relay" has been reduced to a "Come and get me if you have the guts!" show of bravado. These political excesses clearly violate Article 13 of the Referendum Act, which states: "Unless prescribed by this Act, no administrative entity may in any form, carry out a referendum or commission any other organization to carry out a referendum on any topic, and may not draw upon any funds or use government employess at any level to do so." The ruling DPP has turned the system upside down and demonstrated its utter contempt for constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.

Chen Shui-bian needs to realize that if the "Join the UN" campaign peaks too soon, by the time the presidential election rolls around five months from now, any initial thrill from the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" will have died down. The public may then begin to realize the extent of the DPP's violations of the constitution, of the law, of democratic norms, and of human rights. The public may begin to see through its lawlessness and its perversions of the truth. On election day, moderate voters may dismiss the highly touted "Plebiscite to Join the UN" as nothing more than a "Pig Snout Plebiscite."

Chen Shui-bian said that "Nothing bad will happen merely because we hold his 'Plebiscite to Join the UN'." In other words, no matter what the result of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" might be, Taiwan won't gain membership in the UN, nor will a "Nation of Taiwan" be born. Actually, even though we have yet to hold a "Plebiscite to Join the UN," can we really say that "Nothing bad has happened?" Actually a great deal has happened. A lawless government has violated the Rule of Law and the principle of administrative neutrality. Something very bad indeed has happened.

For Chen Shui-bian to exploit the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" as shamelessly as he has, may cost him more than it is worth. The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" campaign is merely a means of linking certain issues with the presidential election. But the Democratic Progressive Party has violated the constitution and broken the law. Will rational voters dare cast their ballots for a political party with no respect for consitutionalism and the Rule of Law? The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" may well have awakened moderate centrist voters. It may motivate them to cast a cold and rational eye on the perils of continued DPP rule.

Chen Shui-bian wants to "package deal" the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" to "Taiwanese Pathos" and "Taiwanese Consciousness." It wants to bolster support for the Democratic Progressive Party during the presidential election. But political moderates may be turned off by the manipulative methods being used. They may see through the Democratic Progressive Party's hypocrisy and lawlessness. They may decide they have no reason to vote for a Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate again. Chen Shui-bian, beware, lest the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" either evaporates or changes into something ugly before our eyes.

The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is a farce. The sequence of events should have been: The Democratic Progressive Party proposes a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" -> The voters give their approval -> The government formulates a policy -> The government proposes a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" before the United Nations General Assembly. This procedure has been turned on its head: "The government proposed a "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" before the United Nations General Assembly -> The United Nations General Assembly rejected it -> The government violated the constitution and the law promoting a "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" -> On March 22 of next year the government will hold a "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan." The inversion of the proper procedure, from beginning to end, shows that Chen Shui-bian never had any intention in of "Joining the UN." He merely wanted to use the feelings of victimization engendered by the inability to join the UN to destroy the constitution, the law, and the nation. The cost be damned.

Chen Shui-bian and Democratic Progressive Party need to pay attention. The moral legitimacy of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" has been undermined. The political image of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" has been tarnished. If political moderates see the Democratic Progressive Party behaving lawlessly while promoting the "Plebiscite to Join the UN," destroying the law and destroying the country, will they dare to vote for the Democratic Progressive Party during the presidential election?

The Democratic Progressive Party demands the holding of a "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan," even though it knows that such a plebiscite will never result in UN membership. What are moderate voters to conclude, except that the Democratic Progressive Party has no respect for law and order? What are they to conclude? Other than that the DPP, which purports to "love Taiwan," is determined to destroy Taiwan?

豬鼻公投:入聯公投正當性的自我解構
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.24 03:47 am

呂秀蓮說:入聯公投的logo像個豬鼻子,於是有人調侃「入聯公投」是「豬鼻公投」。

從表象上看,陳水扁將入聯公投炒得愈來愈熱,但是由於炒作手法不斷出現違憲、違法、反民主、反人權、反文明的爭議,已使入聯公投的正當性漸趨自我解構,入聯公投的政治形象亦日漸自我醜化。

陳水扁應知「過猶不及,莫為已甚」,勿將入聯公投搞成遭中間選民「嗤之以鼻」的「豬鼻公投」。

入聯公投原有正面形象,發抒民間積鬱,主張台灣權益等,這些皆是入聯公投的賣點。但是,搞到如今這種不擇手段的地步,強令郵局在私人信件上加蓋入聯戳記、動員公務員強拉連署、盜用大筆公帑挹注入聯活動、發票上加印入聯標語、妄將「公投綁大選」採「一階段領投票」、違反「依法行政」、違反「行政中立」,甚至今日起跑的「入聯聖火」接力路跑也一度出現「好膽來抓」的爭議;這些走火入魔的動作,非但明白違反公投法第十三條「行政機關不得以任何形式動用任何經費或調用各級人員辦理公投事項」,就憲政法治而言,更簡直已經到了倒行逆施、無法無天的境地。

陳水扁應有警覺,一鼓作氣,再而衰,三而竭;如今距總統大選還有五個月,等到入聯公投在表象上的絢麗煙霧逐漸散去,民眾或許漸將察覺其中違憲、違法、反民主、反人權的實體,洞燭其無法無天、倒行逆施的真相;屆時,冠冕堂皇的「入聯公投」,恐怕就會變成被中間選民「嗤之以鼻」的「豬鼻公投」。

陳水扁說,「入聯公投以後什麼也不會發生」。此話無誤,不論公投結果如何,皆不可能「入聯」,「台灣國」亦不可能誕生。但是,如今雖然尚未公投,難道真的什麼事都不曾「發生」嗎?其實已經「發生」了一個無法無天的政府,違反「依法行政」、違反「行政中立」,難道這還是「什麼事都不會發生」?

陳水扁將入聯公投玩到這種無法無天的地步,恐怕會有本末倒置、因小失大的風險。因為,公投畢竟是「綁」大選的手段,但如今將公投玩到這種違憲違法、無法無天的地步,難道能叫理智的中間選民還敢再把票投給民進黨這種違憲違法、無法無天的政府嗎?公投火熱,可能反而喚醒了中間選民的冷靜與理智。

陳水扁想用「入聯公投」,綁住選民的「台灣悲情」與「台灣意識」,在總統大選中支持民進黨;但是,中間選民卻可能從「入聯公投」的醜惡操作中,更加看清民進黨的虛偽奸巧與無法無天,則總統大選即無再選民進黨的理由。陳水扁應仔細拿捏:勿使「入聯公投」的正當性如冰銷雪融般地自我解構,亦勿使「入聯公投」急轉直下地自我醜化。

其實,這場入聯公投根本是一場鬧劇。其原本應有的運動流程是:「民進黨提入聯公投→全民公投通過→政府據以形成政策→政府向聯大提出『以台灣名義入聯』」;但是,如今這個運動流程已本末顛倒:「政府已向聯大聲請『以台灣名義入聯』→聯大已否決→政府違法違憲推動『台灣入聯公投』→明年三月二十二日『公投以台灣名義入聯』」。從這個始末顛倒的程序即可看出,陳水扁根本意不在「入聯」,而只是要玩弄「入不了聯合國」的悲情與挫折感。毀憲、毀法、毀國,在所不惜。

陳水扁及民進黨必須注意:「入聯公投」的正當性正逐漸自我解構,「入聯公投」的政治形象亦日漸自我醜化;只要中間選民看出民進黨操作「入聯公投」的無法無天,毀法毀國,難道還敢在總統大選中選民進黨嗎?

中間選民此時的思考是:這究竟是一個主張「入聯什麼事都不會發生」的民進黨,還是一個無法無天的民進黨?這究竟是一個「愛台灣」的民進黨,還是一個毀法毀國的民進黨?

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Triumph of the Will: Chen Shui-bian's "Rule by Confrontation"

Triumph of the Will: Chen Shui-bian's "Rule by Confrontation"
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 23, 2007

Apparently the strong suit of the eight-year old Chen Shui-bian regime is its ability to say: "You want to make something of it?"

Chen Shui-bian, ignoring the fact that he failed to file an application for a road use permit, insisted on running the first stage of the "Join the UN Torch Relay." By doing so, he trampled over the rule of law and further undermined the questionable legitimacy of the "Join the UN" campaign. The tempest over the road use permit is being referred to as an "incident." It would be more accurate to characterize it as a confrontation. The Chen regime habitually resorts to confrontation to get what it wants. This reveals that Chen Shui-bian's goal is not to "Join the UN," but to exploit the political impact of the confrontation itself. Universal chaos means political opportunities.

The road use permit was purely a procedural issue. It has now been turned into a test of strength between central authorities and local authorities, into a contest of wills between a president and a mayor. The problem is not with the Taipei Municipal Government, but with an arrogant event sponsor. The event sponsor intentionally created a situation in which the president would take the lead in breaking the law. The "Join the UN Torch Relay" is a public activity in which a head of state and scores of political appointees intend to participate. Yet the Sports Affairs Council never had any intention of applying for a road use permit. It considered the general public's right to use the roads a non-issue. Chen Shui-bian dared Hao Lung-pin to "Come and get me, if you have the guts!" In his eyes there was no rule of law. It did not exist. His only concern was creating chaos and escalating confrontation.

Whether a government is able to operate smoothly is determined a three levels: At the lowest level is the civil service, its administrative neutrality and its adherence to the rule of law. At the intermediate level are political appointees, their policy-making ability and their administrative style. At the highest level is the ruling administration and its vision for the nation. Since regime change seven and a half years ago, the government's ability to make policy has steadily deteriorated, starting from the top down. The leadership's irresolution, corruption, and incompetence have become Taiwan greatest liability. Mid-level decision-makers have lost the capacity to arrive at independent judgments. Today, even low-level agencies's adherence to the rule of law has been obliterated by the chief executive. How can such a government carry out even its most basic functions?

The sponsors of the "Join the UN Torch Relay" missed the one month filing deadline for a "sporting event." Why not make up for it by changing the application to read "political event?" It would be more honest. The sponsors could coordinate with the Taipei Municipal Government, requesing an emergency dispensation. That would be the normal procedure for a normal government. But the Chen regime taunted local authorities for two straight days, daring them to "Come and get me, if you have the guts!" Chen Shui-bian puts himself above the law and abuses the powers of his office when he engages in such provocations. This is why the ROC is no longer a "normal nation."

The Chen regime's love of confrontation has its roots. When the Democratic Progressive Party was out of office, it provoked endless street corner confrontations to undermine Kuomintang authority. Once it seized power, it used demostrations and provocations against the Chinese Communist Party to gain an edge at the polls. The strategic value of such confrontations is understandable. But Chen Shui-bian is provoking confrontations not merely between people, but also between north and south, and the government itself. It is provoking confrontations between different agencies within the executive, making it impossible for law enforcement and administrative personnel to fulfill their duties. To rule a nation in this manner is selfish, myopic, and callous beyond belief.

Nor is Chen Shui-bian alone. More and more officials have adopted confrontation as a means of dealing with government affairs. For example, Government Information Office Chief Hsieh Chi-wei's recent theatrics in the Legislative Yuan. For example, Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng's glowering responses to outside criticisms. Not forgetting of course Ye Kuo-hsing, who "shot" and executed members of the media with his thumb and forefinger, or Yao Wen-chi, who provoked one controversy after another. These reflect a government and civil service out of control and oblivious about its mission. Rule by Whim has replaced Rule by Law. What kind of face should we associate with such a government? How about the face of a petty tyrant barking out commands? How about a bunch of harlequins leaping about in an effort to steal the spotlight, while conscientious officials look on in silence?

The Democratic Progressive Party is aware of the need for order. But it has chosen to engage in an orgy of mayhem, then to feast on the blood gushing from the nation's wounds. For over seven years, it has shouted slogans promising "reconciliation, harmony, happiness, and joy," not one of which has materialized. It relentlessly leads the people down the road toward confrontation, animosity, and misery.

What kind of language is "Come and get me, if you have the guts!" but the language of a Mafia capo? Yet it emerges from the mouth of our head of state, a man who was once a prominent lawyer and legislator. This man, the "Son of Taiwan" responsible for regime change, is now the same man who has destroyed the island's budding democracy and fragile rule of law. Chen Shui-bian's contorted visage reflects both the ruling party's rapid decay and Taiwan's collective unwillingness to look itself in the mirror.

Chen Shui-bian's eight year long "rule by confrontation" has drained Taiwan of its lifeblood and vitality. Now Chen would have everyone believe that an illegal, unsanctioned "Join the UN Torch Relay" will somehow overthrow the Republic of China and establish a "Nation of Taiwan?"

依「膽」行政:陳水扁的「衝突治國術」
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.23 03:56 am

陳水扁八年治國的看家本領就是:嘸你嘜安吶?

罔顧未合法取得路權,陳水扁執意持第一棒率「入聯路跑」開跑,這不僅踐踏了國家法治,更玷汙整個入聯活動。路權風波與其稱為一個「事件」,倒不如說是扁政府慣用的「衝突模式」,企圖藉著製造衝突和爭端來營造效果。這也顯示,陳水扁追求的不是入聯,而是它的政爭效應。天下大亂,形勢大好。

路權原是一個單純的「程序」問題,現在竟能升級為中央對地方、總統對市長的角力,關鍵不在北市府強硬,而在主辦單位傲慢自恃,從而故意造成「總統帶頭違法」的態勢。一個國家元首及眾多政務官參與的公開活動,體委會自始即無意申請路權,那是根本不把民眾的用路權放在眼裡;而當陳水扁向郝龍斌嗆聲「有膽來抓」時,他的眼裡根本沒有法治,只想製造這種「無政府狀態」來升高衝突。

政府的運作順暢與否,取決於三個層次:在最基礎的部分,是文官體系的「行政中立」及「依法行政」;在中間一層,是政務官員的決策智慧及從政風格;在最上一層,則是主政者的治國瞻矚。政黨輪替七年半來,政府的決策力由上而下逐漸腐蝕,領導階層的善變反覆及貪瀆無能,成為台灣最大的危機;在中間的政務決策層次,則陷入失去人格風骨及自主判斷的茫然;如今,竟連基層機構「依法行政」的準則都遭元首踐踏,這個政府還能維持基本的功能嗎?

試想,入聯活動錯過以「體育活動」名義在一個月前申請的期限,何妨改以「政治活動」補辦,也更名副其實;甚至,也可透過行政協調,要求北市府緊急協助,這才是正常政府的運作方式。但扁政府的作法,卻接連兩天由總統放話威嚇「有膽來抓」,這種挑釁的手法,不僅把自己放在一個超越法律的地位,甚至是刻意利用元首身分製造衝突,把「依法行政」的基本信仰全盤瓦解。台灣之所以不是一個「正常國家」,真正的根源其實在此。

扁政府對於「衝突模式」之愛好,其來有自。民進黨在野時期,透過不斷的街頭衝撞,有效瓦解國民黨的統治權威;執政後,又利用對中共的示威挑釁,賺取選舉的邊緣利益。上述衝突操作不乏戰略需要,倒可理解;但演至今天,陳水扁不僅在人民之間製造衝突,在南北製造衝突,甚至在政府內部製造衝突,讓不同的行政機構互相對立,讓執法及行政人員無所適從。這樣的治國方式,何止自私短視,簡直是冷血不仁。

不僅陳水扁如此,政府部門也越來越多官員採取「衝突模式」來處理政務。諸如新聞局長謝志偉在立法院的越位演出,教育部長杜正勝對外界批評的橫眉怒目應答,更別忘了先前「掃射」媒體的葉國興,屢滋爭議的姚文智,都反映了整個政府體系的傾斜與文官自我認知的失控。且看,當「依法行政」的邏輯被「依膽行政」取代後,政府的面貌變成了什麼模樣?一個獨夫隻手號令天下,幾個跳梁小丑搶盡舞台風光,絕大多數官員噤若寒蟬,現在不就是這般景象嗎?

民進黨並非不知道「秩序」為何物,它卻讓自己耽溺在以「破壞秩序」與「破壞和諧」為職志的癖好中,以舔吮社會的創傷和國家的血痕為樂。七年多了,喊過最多的「和解」、「和諧」、「幸福」、「快樂」的口號,無一能夠實現,卻不斷把人民帶入對峙、仇恨和哀傷。

「有膽來抓」,其實是黑幫大哥向司法嗆聲的語言,卻出自我們國家元首之口,他還曾是狀元律師、第一名的立法委員、首位締造政黨輪替的「台灣之子」,他卻也一手葬送了台灣的民主和法治。陳水扁的扭曲變形,反射的不僅是執政黨的快速墮落,也是台灣不敢攬鏡自照的沉淪。

陳水扁的「衝突治國術」內耗空轉了台灣八年的元氣,如今他卻要大家相信,跑一場未經合法手續的入聯接力,「中華民國的供桌」即可拆掉,台灣就可以得救了!

Monday, October 22, 2007

Why the Government is Paralysed: Economic Microcephaly and Political Huntington's Disease

Why the Government is Paralysed: Economic Microcephaly and Political Huntington's Disease
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2007

The Chen regime's performance for the past seven and a half years can be summed up two ways: One, its international standing has deteriorated steadily, yet its reaction is to butt its head against the wall. Two, its domestic policies are an unmitigated catastrophe, yet its reaction is to spend money as if there were no tomorrow. Sudden price increases have left the government at a complete loss. Yet the government's reaction is to redouble its efforts to "Join the UN." Its reaction is to neglect the welfare of the people, by tilting at windmills, and putting the cart before the horse. The government is paralyzed by its own incompetence.

Leave aside increases in the price of produce following Typhoon Krosa. The government has never had a policy for dealing with increases in the price of oil or consumer goods. It has done nothing but watch from the sidelines. Whether the problem is short-term commodity price fluctuations or long-term supply chain adjustments, the Chen regime has essentially abandoned the ordinary citizen and left him to fend for himself. But all it takes is a single order from Chen Shui-bian to promote the "Join the UN" campaign, and a sluggish and unresponsive bureaucracy immediately springs to life. The post office, the water company, the power company, and other public services cooperate by stamping "Join the UN" slogans on everything from private correspondence to utility bills. When senior citizens collect their monthly social security checks, local governments misappropriate their chops and affix them to "Join the UN" petitions without their knowledge or authorization. Central government agencies compete with each other contributing to the "Join the UN" campaign. From top to bottom, everyone is in perfect lockstep. The efficiency is astonishing.

The government is indifferent to the welfare of the people or the health of the economy. By contrast, it is passionate about political mobilization. Superficially this would seem to reflect the ruling regime's monomania and irrationality. In fact, the root of the problem is the ruling party's inability to solve real problems by normal methods. Therefore all it can do is play political games. All it can do is set off smoke grenades, diverting the public's attention. In fact, the Chen regime's "irrational" political games are in fact rational calculations based on an awareness of its own incompetence. Such a regime is more frightening than one that is merely insane. Such a regime is so cold-blooded it would consciously sacrifice the future of the nation for selfish political advantage.

Why are people incapable of bettering the economic circumstances of the people, able to do such an enthusiatic job of promoting the "Join the UN" campaign? It's no secret. It's because the "Join the UN" campaign requires only obeying orders from above. It does not require individual intelligence or independent judgment. But dealing with even minor issues such as fluctuations in the price of green onions, requires precise market information and specialized administrative ability. It requires balancing the interests of farmers, merchants and consumers. But the Chen regime's populist nature ensures that it will attempt to appease all parties. Therefore whenever it encounters such a lose/lose/lose situation, it has no solutions. All it can do is pretend not to hear the people's complaints.

From beginning to end, the "Join the UN" movement has been a campaign requiring no thought. It is something "easier done than said." That's because the government is not actually seeking to "Join the UN." It is merely seeking to exploit "Join the UN" propaganda for political advantage. The target of the government's propaganda is not foreign governments, but domestic voters. What's so difficult about that? Spending the public's money to wash the public's brains, all the while trumpeting the process as a heroic undertaking. What could be easier than that?

As long as postal service and electric company officials obey orders, they are assured of glowing performance reviews. As long as financial, economic, and defense officials comply with orders to provide funds and stage skydiving shows, they have demonstrated their fealty to the regime. Under such circumstances, what need do executive branch officials have for independent thought? Or even brains? Hence the spectacle of Government Information Office Chief Hsieh Chi-wei leaping to the podium to respond to questions directed at Chang Chun-hsiung, without being summoned. Hence the spectacle of Vice Minister of Finance Li Jui-tsang ordering civil servants to participate in a signature drive for the "Plebiscite to Join the UN." Hence the spectacle of Minister of Finance Ho Chih-chin denying all knowledge of such an order. Hence the spectacle of the Executive Yuan claiming that increasing garbage collection fees did not constitute decision-making, and passing the buck to the Environmental Protection Agency. What are these confused thoughts and moral inversions, if not classic symptoms of microcephaly? Under such circumstances, for Frank Hsieh to equate the economic welfare of the people with the "feeding of pigs, dogs, and chickens" is hardly surprising.

When the Chen Shui-bian administration first took office it payed lip service to reform. Over the past two years, not only have chants of "reform" died on the wind, so have boasts about "bolstering the economy." Obviously, the ruling regime knows its lies have been refuted by its own actions. Last year the Japanese media used the term "necrotic" to describe the dysfunctional state of the Chen regime. Most worrisome today is that Taiwan will be despoiled by a political authority in an advanced state of necrosis. How can the people hope for a peaceful existence under a regime afflicted with both "Economic Microcephaly" and "Political Huntington's Disease?"

The government has reduced the nation's problems to a single issue. If only we can hold a "Plebiscite to Join the UN," they promise, then we enter a Brave New World. How many times will ROC citizens fall for this Big Lie? The Democratic Progressive Party's fanaticism conceals a bigger secret. To paraphrase a popular expression: "It's your incompetence, stupid!"

政府為何癱瘓:經濟小腦症和政治舞蹈症
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.22 03:50 am

七年半來,扁政府的效能可歸結為兩個面向:其一,是國際地位一日不如一日,主政者卻迄今仍在推車撞壁;其二,對內施政一敗塗地,掌權者卻依舊胡亂揮霍。最近物價暴漲政府束手無策,它卻將全部精力用於推動「入聯」,遠民生、弄虛無,本末倒置,政府失能已至癱瘓的地步。

不談柯羅莎颱風後的菜價波動,從更早的油價飆升、民生用品百價齊發,行政部門自始至終袖手旁觀,拿不出任何對策。無論短期的物資調節,或者長期的供應鍊結構調整,扁政府皆形同棄守,無視於小民哀哀之苦。然而,對於陳水扁一聲令下衝刺入聯運動,行政部門卻馬上像活了過來,從郵局、水電等公用部門配合蓋印戳記,到地方政府盜用民眾領取敬老金的印章連署入聯,到各中央部會爭相挖牆掏壁上繳入聯宣傳配合款,上上下下步驟齊一,效率驚人。

政府對民生經濟的冷感,對照它對政治動員的熱中,表面上看,這反映了主政者的偏執與非理性;但實質上,更深的根源在執政黨根本無法透過常態行政來解決問題,所以只能玩弄虛無的政治花招,在高空製造煙幕,轉移民眾的注意。亦即,扁政府的非理性政治操弄,其實是它認清自己的「無能」後的一種理性盤算;那比主政者純然的瘋狂還可怕,因為這已到了冷血刻意耗喪國力與民心的地步。

為什麼無能處理民生問題的人,卻能把入聯運動推得淋漓盡致?祕訣無他:因為入聯運動只要聽指令行事即可,不需要任何智慧或獨立判斷;而處理任何小小的青蔥菜價波動,都需要精確的市場資訊及專業的行政智能,才能在農民、商人及消費者之間維持平衡。以扁政府素來的民粹取向,只想面面討好,碰到這種三難的局面,它既無能力解決,就只好裝作聽不見民眾的哀鳴了。

至於入聯,從頭到尾都不是一個需要思考的決策,本質上也是一個「做比說容易」的事。因為,目前政府推動的工作,其實不是「入聯」,而是「入聯宣傳」;何況,政府宣傳的對象也不是國際社會,而是集中在「內部宣傳」,這何難之有?花人民的錢,洗老百姓的頭腦,標榜政府的偉大志業,施政還有比這個更容易的事嗎?

對於台郵、台電等公司而言,只要聽指令行事就是功績一樁;對財經、國防部門而言,只要配合捐款及跳傘活動即可表示效忠;如此一來,行政部門官員還可能有什麼自主意識,還需要用什麼大腦嗎?包括新聞局長謝志偉跳上院會質詢台代張俊雄搶答,包括財次李瑞倉在部內動員連署入聯、而財長何志欽一問三不知,包括行政院說垃圾費的增收不是決策、而把責任推給環保署,這些意識錯亂、倫理倒置的景象,不就是一個「小腦症」政府的典型徵狀嗎?在這種情況下,謝長廷會把民生經濟說成是「豬狗雞」的問題,也就不足為奇了。

比起陳水扁執政初期的口口聲聲「改革」,近兩年,不僅改革口號已成絕響,連「拚經濟」的大話都已隨風而逝;顯然,執政者也知道它的謊言已被自己的行動拆穿。日本媒體去年曾以「死體化」一詞來形容扁政權的衰鈍現象,事實上,今天看來,更堪憂慮的,是被一個死體化政權無度糟蹋的台灣。試想,一個患了經濟「小腦症」政府,在操弄政治鬥爭上又患了嚴重的「舞蹈症」,人民如何奢想有太平的日子可過?

一個政府能將國家的問題化約到如此單一的地步,宣稱只要「入聯公投」,就能美化國家,這種「用來世換今生」的神話,能騙台灣人民幾回?民進黨的偏執,其實隱藏了一個更大的祕密;套句流行的話,可以這麼說:笨蛋!你的問題在無能。

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Why don't Senior Officials of the Democratic Progressive Party get "Join the UN" Tattoos?

News Analysis: Officials get "Join the UN" Tattoos.

Media: Why don't Senior Officials of the Democratic Progressive Party get "Join the UN" Tattoos?

Food prices on Taiwan are going through the roof. The public is unable to make ends meet. How does one increase the number of signatures on "Join the UN" petitions at a time like this? This has become high-ranking Democratic Progressive Party government officials' biggest challenge. Some members of the Legislative Yuan declared that they have "taken a stand" on behalf of the "Plebiscite to Join the UN." The media has satirized these DPP officials. Do they really consider "Joining the UN under the Name Taiwan" a sacred mission? Then why not imitate the Nationalist army troops who retreated to Taiwan, who tattooed anti-Communist slogans on their bodies? Why not give themselves tattooes reading "Support Taiwan's Membership in the UN?"

In 1949 the Kuomintang government retreated to Taiwan. Many Nationalist officers and soldiers tatooed anti-Communist slogans on their chest or arms. This symbolized their determination to recover the Chinese mainland. This became a concrete gesture by which troops could swear their allegiance to their national leader. On October 16 President Chen Shui-bian declared that he would personally set up a stall in the night market to increase the number of signatures on the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" petition. Many officials began declaring that they would "Swear Allegiance to the National Leader." Is it any wonder the media couldn't resist taking a shot at these people?

Source: Taipei newspapers

News Analysis:官員入聯刺青

媒體:民進黨高官何不「入聯」刺青表態?

在台灣菜價高漲、民眾入不敷出的此刻,如何衝高「入聯」公投連署人數?竟然成了民進黨政府高官最重要的思考重點,有人甚至在國會(立法院)宣稱他有「表態」支持入聯公投的自由,媒體因此諷刺這些民進黨高官:如果真的把「台灣入聯」當成神聖使命,何不學習當年撤退來台、在身體刺上反共口號的老兵,也來個「支持台灣入聯」刺青?

1949年國民黨政府撤退來台,許多隨行的國軍官兵都在胸膛或手臂刺上反共口號,象徵收復國土的必勝決心,當年還成為軍隊中宣示效忠國家領袖的具體行動。也因此,當陳水扁總統16日宣稱將親自在夜市擺攤以衝高「入聯」公投連署人數後,許多官員紛紛表態「效忠國家領袖」,無怪乎媒體對這些人要大加諷刺。

來源:Taipei newspapers

How Much Longer must We tolerate such a Lawless Regime?

How Much Longer must We tolerate such a Lawless Regime?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 18, 2007

Summary: This year's United Nations General Assembly has already adjourned. The "Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" movement, however, has not. In order to fight its way into the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party government has gone on full mobilization. Even private correspondence, electricity bills, and receipts for gasoline purchases have had "Join the UN" slogans stamped on them. Stamped "Join the UN" slogans have blotted out the sun, all for one purpose: to "package deal" the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN" with the 2008 Presidential Election. Everyone, from local civil servants to the staff of state-owned enterprises, is required to fall in behind this "policy," to disregard laws mandating civil service neutrality, to disregard the free will of the people. What kind of a nation is this? What kind of a political party is this? From the moment the Democratic Progressive Party decided to package deal its "Plebiscite to Join the UN" with the 2008 Presidential Election, the island has been mired in an endless "Join the UN" nightmare. To paraphrased an expression coined by former US president Bill Clinton, and used by both the ruling and opposition parties to attack each other: "It's the plebiscite, stupid!"

Full Text below:

This year's United Nations General Assembly has already adjourned. The "Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" movement, however, has not. In order to fight its way into the UN, the Democratic Progressive Party government has gone on full mobilization. Even private correspondence, electricity bills, and receipts for gasoline purchases have had "Join the UN" slogans stamped on them. Stamped "Join the UN" slogans have blotted out the sun, all for one purpose: to "package deal" the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's "Plebiscite to Join the UN" with the 2008 Presidential Election. Everyone, from local civil servants to the staff of state-owned enterprises, is required to fall in behind this "policy," to disregard laws mandating civil service neutrality, to disregard the free will of the people. What kind of a nation is this? What kind of a political party is this?

The "Join the UN" stamp has provoked even foreigners living in Taiwan to ask, by what right can a private individual's personal correspondence be stamped with partisan political slogans, without his consent? The foreign language teacher, known only by his surname Talovich, expressed his feelings in the bluntest possible language. He said "he hoped that a democratic nation would be ruled by its people." Unfortunately, a Taiwan which has purportedly undergone democratic transformation, a "Quiet Revolution," still hasn't learned the meaning of "government of the people."

In response to criticisms of the "Join the UN" drive, a Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker argued that between 1982 and 1984, correspondence was stamped with postmarks such as "Unify China by means of Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles," "End Appeasement," and "Overthrow Communist Tyranny." He complained of double standards. The Democratic Progressive Party lawmaker may not have been wrong about the facts, but that was 23 to 25 years ago. That era is known as the "Authoritarian Era." It was neither democratic nor open. Does a ruling party that boasts of being "democratic" and "progressive" really want to be measured according to the standards of an authoritarian regime 25 years ago?

When a government hands down a policy command, one must examine the nature of its command. "Rejoining the UN" was one of former president Lee Teng-hui's main policies. Did Lee Teng-hui or the Kuomintang government presume to instruct the China Postal Service to stamp private correspondence with the "Rejoin the UN" slogan? After the Democratic Progressive Party came to power, political slogans reappeared. In 2003 it stamped correspondence with "Unite to defeat SARS." At the time the nation was deep in depression, therefore the slogan might have had a inspirational effect. Another slogan was "Everyone must be a Solomon. Everyone must oppose vote buying." At least these were values everyone could stand behind.

Does the "Join the UN" movement represent values everyone stands behind? Judging by opinion polls, over 7/10th of the public supports UN membership. But this includes both the "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan" and the "Rejoin the UN under the Name Republic of China." The Democratic Progressive Party government mobilized every level of government in an effort to ensure unquestioning obedience to "government policy." Nevertheless under intense questioning by the political opposition in the Legislative Yuan, officials openly criticized the government's lack of administrative neutrality and illegal use of funds. When the nation's highest representative body questions the government's methods, how can the government assume that whatever it feels like doing constitutes "policy?"

Stamping all these letters, utility bills, and sales receipts costs time and money. Yet the Government Information Office claims this "Join the UN" campaign won't cost anyone one thin dime. Its reasoning is that since each entity is absorbing the costs, the expenses incurred by various government agencies and state owned enterprises are somehow not being borne by the taxpayers! If that isn't outrageous enough, the Government Information Office went even further. It issued written and oral "requests" that broadcast and cable television networks "contribute free air time for public service messages." It demanded that television networks broadcast outside two "Join the UN" commercials produced by outside agencies. It has already taken a bite out of private enterprise. Year end license renewals are coming up. What television network is going to say no to the government? What kind of government considers naked threats and undisguised bribes "policy?"

Are "Join the UN" commercials public service messages? When President Chen Shui-bian visited the South Pacific he declared that his election theme would be the "Join the UN" issue. The Democratic Progressive Party has "linked" the "Plebiscite to Join the UN" to the election from Day One. After Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh ended his 13 day seclusion, the first thing he did was change the theme of his election campaign from an "Economy of Affluence" to a drive to "Join the UN." The United Nations General Assembly adjourned half a month ago. Yet the ruling Democratic Progressive Party government's "Join the UN" movement remains in full swing. The ruling DPP wants the Sports Affairs Council (SAC) to sponsor an island wide "Join the UN" marathon torch run. What is the SAC's annual budget? Is the SAC being accorded due respect? The Taichung City Government held a "National Folkways Festival." The central government provided three million in funds. Then It demanded that all of the National Folkways Festival's promotional literature incorporate "Join the UN" propaganda and slogans. What do folkways have to do with joining the UN?

What's even more disturbing, the Referendum Act clearly stipulates that government agencies may neither conduct, nor authorize others to conduct, plebiscite or referenda related matters. Government agencies may not use funds or assign personnel at any level to plebiscite or referenda related matters. A Ministry of Finance internal conference flagrantly assigned personnnel to collect signatures for the "Join the UN" petition drive. With a straight face, Vice Minister Li Jui-tsang declared that "civil servants exercised their right to express themselves." Excuse me, but did the good vice minister respect the right of civil servants, who are obligated to remain neutral in the conduct of their duties, to express or not express themselves as they saw fit? The good vice minister apparently did not realize he had already violated the law. When issuing senior citizens their monthly welfare checks, Chiayi County "asked" them to sign the "Join the UN" petition. The county government explained that this was an isolated incident. Frankly, even isolated incidents are unacceptable. These are merely incidents that have been exposed. How many incidents have yet to be exposed?

From the moment the Democratic Progressive Party decided to package deal its "Plebiscite to Join the UN" with the 2008 Presidential Election, the island has been mired in an endless "Join the UN" nightmare. To paraphrased an expression coined by former US president Bill Clinton, and used by both the ruling and opposition parties to attack each other: "It's the plebiscite, stupid!"

中時電子報
中國時報  2007.10.18
怎容有這般無法無天的政令宣導?
中時社論

 今年的聯合國大會已經結束了,台灣入聯運動則還沒了。為了拚入聯,民進黨政府全面動員,不但民間私函被蓋上入聯戳章,連水電費帳單、甚至接下來中油發票都要印上入聯標記,鋪天蓋地搞入聯,只為了一件事:配合民進黨的入聯公投綁大選;從基層公務員到國營事業員工,都得配合這項「政策」,既無視文官中立的法制,更無視人民自由意志,這是什麼國家?什麼政黨?

 入聯戳章讓外籍人士都質疑,憑什麼私人郵件可以未經同意被蓋戳章?這位外語老師陶維極用最淺白的語言道出心聲:「我只是希望民主國家,就是要以民為主。」很遺憾,創造寧靜革命、民主奇蹟的台灣,還是學不會以民為主的真義。

 面對入聯戳章爭議,民進黨立委說,一九八二至一九八四年間,都曾加蓋「加速以三民主義統一中國」、「終止姑息主義」、「推翻共產暴政」等郵戳,評論不能雙重標準。民進黨立委說的沒錯,但是別忘了,那是廿三、五年前的事,那個時代,叫做「威權時代」,不要說「民主」,連「開放」都談不上。號稱民主進步的執政黨,難道要向廿五年前的威權政黨看齊嗎?

 政府宣導政令還要看宣導什麼政令,重返聯合國是前總統李登輝執政時期的重大政策,當年的李登輝或國民黨政府敢要求中華郵政在私人郵件上蓋返聯戳章嗎?民進黨政府執政後,郵件戳章重現江湖,民國九十二年蓋的是「戰勝SARS不分你我他」,對當時舉國低迷的氣氛中,還有點激勵人心的作用;還有「人人扮青天家家反賄選」,起碼也是全民都肯定的價值。

 至於入聯,是不是全民共識?從民調上看,超過七成民眾支持;但是,別忘了這裡頭包含台灣入聯和中華民國返聯,民進黨政府動員各部會,全面配合「政府政策」的同時,部會首長卻在立法院面對在野陣營強烈質疑行政不中立,或者違法挪移預算。最高民意機關對這些作法都在質疑的時候,政府怎麼能如此蠻橫地認為我要做的事,就叫「政策」,就非幹到底不可?

 這些戳章,從郵件到水電費帳單上、甚至未來的發票,都是要耗費預算和人事成本額外的工作,新聞局說所有的入聯文宣沒用到別人一毛錢,為什麼?因為各單位都自行吸收啦,政府單位和國營事業的花費,都是全民埋單!這些不夠,新聞局更進一步,發函或口頭通知要求各有線、無線電視台,要以「徵用公益秒數」的方式,要電視台播出委外製作的兩支入聯廣告,這已經是吃到民間企業了,面對年底即將到來的換照審核,哪一家電視台敢說「不」?政策宣導能這樣威脅利誘嗎?

 入聯是不是公益?陳水扁總統自己出訪南太時都說,選戰就是要打入聯,民進黨從一開始就要用入聯公投綁大選,民進黨總統參選人謝長廷閉關十三天後出面,第一件事就是變更他的選舉主軸,從原本的「幸福經濟」一轉而為入聯。聯合國大會已經結束半個月了,民進黨政府的入聯動員還沒結束,要體委會埋單的入聯聖火全台路跑才要啟動,體委會一年預算多少錢?體育圈有被尊重嗎?還有台中市政府舉辦的「全國社區民俗育樂觀摩活動」,中央補助了三百萬,也要求必須全面印製入聯文宣和標語,民俗育樂和入聯何干?

 更恐怖的是,公投法明定行政機關不得藉用任何形式對各項議題辦理或委託辦理公民投票事項,行政機關對此亦不得動用任何經費及調用各級政府職員。結果,財政部內部會議直接分派入聯公投連署,主持會議的次長李瑞倉臉不紅氣不喘的說「公務員有表態的自由」,很抱歉,文官中立,他尊重公務員也有不表態的自由嗎?他更搞不清楚自己已經有觸法之虞了;嘉義縣發放老人津貼竟要求領取津貼老人蓋章在連署書上,縣政府解釋這是個案,坦白講,個案都不行。而這些都還是被爆料的而已,沒被爆料的呢?

 從民進黨決定入聯公投綁大選那一刻開始,全國就陷入日復一日無止盡的入聯噩夢,套用一句朝野最近彼此相互攻詰最常用的話:笨蛋,問題就在入聯公投!

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The Strategic Considerations behind Beijing's Cross Straits Peace Accord

The Strategic Considerations behind Beijing's Cross Straits Peace Accord
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2007

Beijing recently convened its 17th National People's Congress. At home and abroad, attention was focused on three points. The first was the reshuffling of personnel, especially the composition of the standing committee of the Politibureau. The second was political reform. The third was cross Straits relations. Observers on Taiwan were of course most concerned about cross Straits relations. Especially when controversy over the "Plebsicite to Join the UN" has reached a fever pitch. The Olympic Flame could have reduced cross Straits tensions. But it is now a bust. Naturally everyone was waiting to see what the Beijing authorities would say about cross Straits relations at its 17th National People's Congress.

As it turned out, the cross Straits portion of Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao's report never once mentioned the "Plebsicite to Join the UN." Nor did it invoke the "Anti-Secession Law" or any need to resort to "non-peaceful means." Besides reiterating past policy, the text appealed to the ruling party on Taiwan to negotiate a peace accord on the basis of the "One China" principle, and to establish a framework for peaceful cross Straits cooperation. This is the first time the Chinese Communist Party has incorporated such language into the party's official documents. This means the tone has officially been set. This will be the Chinese Communist Party's Taiwan policy for the next five to ten years.

Beijing has cited a "Cross Straits Peace Agreement" as its framework for future cross Straits relations. This confirms what many commentators have said, that "preventing independence" is more urgent than "promoting reunification." It has a number of other implications. These implications should not be ignored by anyone who follows cross Straits relations. First, let's look at the revised language. In the past, the Chinese Communist Party leadership always spoke of "peaceful reunification" and "peaceful negotiations." This is the first time it has spoken of "signing a peace agreement." This is the first time it has emphasized process and procedure over results. This reveals a significant change in the manner in which Beijing intends to deal with cross Straits issues. This change has been expressed at another level. It is actively responding to the Democratic Progressive Party's "Memorandum of Understanding for Stable Cross Straits Interaction." It also incorporates the content of several communiques issued by Lien Chan and James Soong during their visits to Beijing. In other words, their proposal is seeking the greatest common denominator in cross Straits relations.

Beijing's strategic consideration for its proposal is clear. It no longer wishes to dance to the tune of Taiwan's electoral topics. So it is quietly applying the brakes and proposing a larger framework. This larger framework doesn't stress any "Anti-Secession Law" but makes a direct appeal for a peace agreement. For Beijing the "One China" premise is a given. The "Anti-Secession Law" is implied. This framework allows Beijing to affirm its commitment to cross Straits reconciliation and dialogue by means of proposals for a peace accord, with preconditions. This kind of declaration is aimed not at Taiwan, but at the international community. Beijing knows the entire world is watching to see how it responds to the DPP's "Plebsicite to Join the UN." As the DPP cranks up the volume on its "Plebsicite to Join the UN" campaign, Beijing not only eschews harsh language, it champions peace and urges dialogue. It creates a positive image for itself on the international stage. Washington's initital, positive response shows that it is working. In other words, Beijing is engaged in international image building, The trouble-maker in cross Straits relations is Taiwan, not the Chinese Communist Party. The seeker of cross Straits reconciliation and dialogue is the Chinese Communist Party, not Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party has already gained the upper hand internationally. If it can establish its credentials as peacemaker in the Taiwan Straits, why should it fear the DPP's "Plebiscite to Join the UN?"

Beijing did not once mention the "Plebsicite to Join the UN." It put the signing of a peace accord into writing. These constitute an expression of goodwill towards the ROC government on Taiwan. but the response of the Executive Yuan, the Mainland Affairs Council, and the DPP Legislative committee was uniformly negative. Their reaction to the peace accord was chilly. President Chen bluntly referred to it as a "surrender agreement." Their response is not hard to understand. The party and the government have just kicked off their "Plebsicite to Join the UN." They have no intention of responding to any offer of a peace accord.

As we can see, the authorities on the two sides of the Taiwan Straits aren't on the same page. The Democratic Progressive Party is revving up its "Plebsicite to Join the UN." It is concerned exclusively with winning the upcoming elections. It is concerned exclusively with checkmating its political opponent in a game of Xiang Qi (Chinese Chess). Beijing, meanwhile, is concerned with establishing a cross Straits framework for future interaction. It is concerned with surrounding its opponent in a game of Wei Qi (Go). The game may proceed more slowly, but the encirclement is taking shape. These games have different rules and different strategies. For the moment each side may be able to play its own game. But with the passage of time, which side should be more worried?

中時電子報
中國時報  2007.10.17
北京倡議兩岸和平協議的戰略思考
中時社論

 面對北京召開的第十七屆全國代表大會,海內外關注焦點,多集中在三個焦點上,第一部分是人事改組,特別是政治局常委的接班梯隊誰屬;第二部分是政治改革,第三部分則是兩岸關係。當然台灣最關注的還是兩岸關係部分,特別是此刻台灣「入聯公投」吵得震天價響,原本可能緩和兩岸關係的奧運聖火登台又破局,因而北京當局會在十七大中怎麼論述兩岸關係,自然令人矚目。

 結果在中共總書記胡錦濤的政治報告中,有關兩岸關係的部分不僅隻字未提「入聯公投」,也未出現任何要啟動《反分裂國家法》使用「非和平手段」的條文,文字表述除了重申以往的政策方針外,主要就是呼籲台灣的執政黨在「一個中國」原則的基礎上,協商和平協議,構建兩岸和平發展架構。而如果要說這份政治報告在對台政策上有所謂任何的「新意」,應該就是中共首度將這段文字寫進了黨的正式文件中,這也等於是將中共未來五至十年的對台政策的框架,正式定了調。

 對北京而言,將「兩岸簽署和平協議」做為未來兩岸關係的指導框架,除了彰顯一般評論所指陳的,意在「防獨」重於「促統」外,也包含了其它諸多的意涵,這些意涵是所有關注兩岸關係者都不應輕忽的。先就文字修辭部分論,中共領導人過去對兩岸關係的提法,一直維持在「和平統一」、「和平談判」等類似終局狀態的語言風格,而「簽署和平協議」則是首度在語言風格上,改以過程與程序的形式加以論述,這種從「終局論述」到「過渡論述」的改變,相當程度上透露了北京對兩岸思維風格的改變。這種改變同時也表現在另一個層面,即此一倡議不僅積極回應了民進黨所提過的「兩岸簽署穩定互動架構說帖」,也參考了連宋在北京參訪期間所發表的幾個公報內容,也等於說,這個倡議是有在尋求兩岸在這個課題上的最大公約數。

 北京提出這個倡議的戰略思考很清楚,一方面它不再隨台灣內部選舉議題的操作起舞,而是「以靜制動」,揭示出一個更大的框架,這個架構並不強調要啟動什麼《反分裂國家法》,而是正面呼籲簽署和平協議。對北京而言,反正「一個中國」的大前提已先定在那,《反分裂國家法》只須隱身幕後,在這個前提下藉由「簽署和平協議」的倡議,可以充分宣示北京對兩岸的基本立場是要和解的、要對話的,但也絕不是沒有底線的。某種角度說,這種宣示所訴求的對象不全是針對台灣,而是向國際社會訴求,因為他們知道全世界都在關注北京會怎麼回應台灣的「入聯公投」攻勢。結果在面對台灣不斷升高「入聯公投」的強度下,北京不但沒有說出任何重話,反而擺出追求「和平」的姿態,並提出尋求對話的架構,在國際社會上所塑造的當然就會是正面的形象,美國華府第一時間給予正面肯定即是顯例。換言之,它等於是在國際社會間營造一種意象:在兩岸製造麻煩的是台灣不是中共,而在兩岸追求和解對話的是中共而不是台灣。要知道,中共在國際社會宣傳競爭中已經享有絕對的優勢,如果能再在兩岸問題上搶得「和平締造者」的國際印象,試問北京又何懼台灣升高「入聯公投」的攻勢呢?

 儘管北京隻字未提「入聯公投」,也將簽署和平協議載入文件,算是對台灣表達了某種善意,但台灣這邊不論是行政院、陸委會還是立院民進黨黨團的反應都是負面的,對「簽署和平協議」的反應也相當冷淡,陳總統甚至直指其為「投降協議」。這個反應不難理解,在黨政部門此刻全面啟動「入聯公投」之際,根本沒有任何氛圍足以去回應「簽署和平協議」的任何內容。

 看得出來,當下兩岸當局對議題操作的模式,其實是展示了兩套不同的棋局。民進黨「入聯公投」鬧得再大,意也只在贏得明年初的兩項選舉,彷彿是在下一盤攻勢凌厲的象棋,意只在吃掉將帥棋子而已;而北京則意在架構全新的兩岸互動模式,下的彷彿是全方位布局的圍棋,落子或許緩慢,但圍局則正在形成。這兩套不同的棋法與棋局,目前也許各行其是,但若拉開時間與空間的視野,哪一邊該更有警覺心呢?

Ma Ying-jeou's Taipei European School New Campus Dedication Speech

Ma Ying-jeou's Taipei European School New Campus Dedication Speech
translated by Bevin Chu
October 17, 2007

In May of last year (2006) Principal John Nixon, Ministry of Foreign Affairs European Affairs Director Wang Yu-yuan, and I participated in the Taipei European School's Wen Lin School District Relocation and Groundbreaking Ceremony. Today I am happy to be able to participate in the Taipei European School's New Campus Dedication Ceremony, to be a witness to the Taipei European School's shining future.

One. European Unification — A Model of Ethnic Integration

The Taipei European School is a very special school. It was established in 1990. Its predecessor was the Taipei German School, the English School, and the French School. In 1992 the three were combined into one. In 2003 its name was changed to the Taipei European School. The school was divided into German, English, and French Departments. It recruited preschool through high school students. Teaching was conducted in German, English and French. It had nearly a thousand students from 50 countries around the globe, and nearly 200 teachers. It was a miniature global village, a microcosmic version of our earth.

The establishment of the Taipei European School is a shining example of ethnic integration. As we know, this is the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Union. In 1957 six European countries signed the Treaty of Rome. Europe began its journey toward integration. Despite long standing cultural and linguistic differences, Europe found common ground in values such as freedom, democracy, the rule of law, equality, and human rights. In January 2007, Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union. Now the European Union includes 27 countries. Its total population is 500 million. It has become the world's largest economic and trading entity. European Union members include nations in Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe. It has 23 official languages. During Europe's integration, nations set aside their differences. They promoted mutual welfare and harmony. The European Union is more than an example for the world to emulate. It is an example for Taiwan to emulate.

Two. Economic Relations between the Republic of China and the European Union

According to European Union estimates, the Taiwan region of the ROC is the European Union 10th biggest supplier. It is the European Union's 14th biggest trading partner. Excluding the European continent, it is the European Union's 10th biggest trading partner. Within Asia it is the European Union's 5th biggest trading partner. In 2006 exports to the European Union amounted to 26 billion Euros, an increase of 9.7%. European Union exports to Taiwan amounted to 13 billion Euros, an increase of 1.5%. In 2006 total trade amounted to 39.4 billion Euros, an increase of 6.8%. Compared to peak trade totals of 43 billion Yuan in 2000, Taiwan's exports to the European Union in recent years has slowed. In 2006 this led to a Taiwan to European Union trade deficit of 13 billion Euros, an increase of nearly 20% compared to 2005.

In terms of investments, the European Union established a new high in 2006. Its investments in Taiwan exceeded 7 billion Euros (Ministry of Economic Affairs figures). In 2006 over half of the ROC's foreign investment came from the European Union. One reason was many subsidiaries on Taiwan stransferred their technology to their European headquarters. Another was that several new investments on Taiwan went forward. Estimates for total European Union investment in Taiwan approach 15 billion US Dollars. Over half from Holland (9 billion US Dollars). Next come the UK (4 billion US Dollars) and Germany (1.7 billion US Dollars). Total European Union investments on Taiwan in 2006 surpassed even those by the US and Japan. The European Union has become the ROC's biggest foreign investor, accounting for as much as as 20% of all foreign investments.

In terms of personnel exchanges, in 2006 visitors from Taiwan to European Union countries increased almost 10% compared to 2005. Over 330,000 visas were issued, a new high. Students going to the European Union to pursue advanced studies also increased, exceeding 12,000 in 2006. The number has doubled since a decade ago. An estimated 25,000 or more students from Taiwan are currently attending school in Europe.

Three. Strengthen the Economy. Connect with the Asian Pacific Region. Adopt a Global Outlook.

Taiwan's economic performance has deteriorated badly since 2000. We were once the first of the Four Asian Tigers. We are now the last. We have steadily slipped in international competitiveness. According to Switzerland's International Institute for Management Development (IMD), mainland China surpassed Taiwan in global competitiveness for the first time this year. Last year we ranked 17th. This year we dropped to 18th. Mainland China meanwhile, advanced from 18th to 15th. The consensus is Taiwan's competitiveness has fallen primarily due to unsound government policy.

I believe we must improve the economy and create employment opportunities. My basic view is:

First. Economic matters should be dealt with by economic means. When Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell visited some time ago, I consulted with him regarding Taiwan's economic development, and that is what he said.

Second. To resuscitate Taiwan's economy requires "pragmatic opening." The Democratic Progressive Party's seven year long Closed Door Policy has seriously impacted normal business development, and cannot be allowed to continue.

Third. Non economic factors that affect economic development must be eliminated. On the one hand we must establish a model for political party cooperation. This will ensure domestic political stability. On the other hand, we must sign a peace agreement with the mainland predicated on "peaceful co-existence and mutual prosperity." This will promote cross Straits economic and trade normalization.

Fourth. Economic development must take into consideration issues of fairness, justice, and sustainable development. Since the Democratic Progressive Party has been in power, the gap between rich and poor has reached new highs. We must reduce this disparity. At the same time, we must also take into account environmental protection issues. We must fulfill our responsibilities as members of the Global Village.

In accordance with these four premises, we hope to strengthen Taiwan, connect with the Asian Pacific Region, and adopt a Global Outlook. Our blueprint for economic development has three goals. They are to transform Taiwan into a global center for innovation, an Asian Pacific economic and trade hub, and a transshipment center for Taiwan businesses.

Our goal is: Six percent annual growth after 2008. A per capita income of US$20,000 by 2011. 100,000 employment opportunities. An unemployment rate below 3%. In short, we must recreate a prosperous Taiwan "knee deep in money."

In order to achieve these goals, we must first accomplish two important tasks.

(1) Open up Three Links and Direct Flights

If I am elected, I will promote direct cross Straits sea and air links as swiftly as possible. This will expedite cross Straits exchanges, save time and money, and hopefully allow Taiwan to become a springboard by which European businesses can advance to the Chinese mainland.

(2) I will promote the normalization of cross Straits relations, predicated on "peace and prosperity."

In addition to President Chen Shui-bian's Five Noes, I have proposed "Five Desires," predicated upon the 92 Consensus. These include: restarting cross Straits negotiations, signing a cross Straits 30 to 50 year peace agreement, normalizing cross Straits economic and trade and moving toward a cross Straits common market, increasing the ROC's international space and strengthening cross Straits cultural exchanges, enabling mainland high school students to attend university on Taiwan. I believe we can achieve mutual trust with the mainland, and with peace and prosperity as our twin goals, establish a win/win cross Straits relationship. Taiwan business investments on the mainland will operate under a deregulated policy of "open as the rule, managed as the exception." This will enable businesses to develop freely.

Fourth. Conclusion

When I held the post of Taipei mayor, I deeply respected the Taipei European School. When the Taipei European School needed to build a new campus, we provided close cooperation. I wanted Taipei to provide a quality environment that would allow international talent to come to Taiwan to live and work, and not worry about their children's schooling.

I hope the establishment of the Taipei European School will enable more international talent to live on Taiwan, attract more international talent to Taiwan, and thereby turn Taipei into an international village. Thank you all.

10月17日
台北歐洲學校新校區開幕典禮參考稿

去(2006)年5月與倪克森(John Nixon)校長及外交部歐洲司司長王豫元一同參加台北歐洲學校文林校區遷建動土典禮,今天很高興能夠來參加台北歐洲學校新校區的開幕典禮,見證台北歐洲學校新校區的未來。

一、歐洲整合—族群融合的典範

台 北歐洲學校是一個很特別的學校,成立於1990年,前身為台北德國學校、英國學校及法國學校,於1992年整合,2003年再更名為台北歐洲學校 (Taipei European School),學校裡分為德國部、英國部、法國部及高中部,不但招收幼稚園到高中的外籍學生,校內教學亦包括德語、英語和法語三種語言,學校擁有來自全 球50個國家近千名的國際學生及近2百名教職員,是一個小型地球村,也是全球的縮影。

台北歐洲學校的成立,恰好展現了族群融合的典範。我 們知道,今年剛好是歐盟成立50年,1957年歐洲六國簽署羅馬條約後,歐洲走上整合之路,在多元文化、語言與傳統中,歐洲找出共同的自由、民主、法治、 平等及人權等價值。2007年1月羅馬尼亞和保加利亞加入歐盟之後,如今歐盟已擴增至27國,總人口5億,已成為全球最大經濟體與貿易實體,歐盟成員除了 遍及中西歐地區之外,更深入中歐及東歐地區,光官方語言就有23種,歐洲在整合過程中,捐棄前嫌,提升彼此的福祉與和諧,不但是全球學習的對象,也是台灣 借鏡的對象。

二、台灣與歐盟經濟交流現況

根據歐盟統計,台灣是歐盟第10大供應商,是歐盟全球第14位貿易夥伴,在歐陸 以外地區,台灣是歐盟第10大貿易伙伴,在亞洲國家中為歐盟第5大貿易伙伴。2006年台灣對歐盟出口金額達260億歐元,成長達9.7%,歐盟對台灣出 口金額為130億歐元,成長1.5%;2006年貿易總額達394億歐元,成長6.8%,與2000年貿易總額高峰期—430億元比較,似乎近年來台灣對 歐盟出口成長較為趨緩,使得2006年台灣對歐盟逆差130億歐元,較2005年增加近20%。

在投資方面,歐盟2006年對台灣投資金 額創新高,突破70億歐元(經濟部統計),2006年台灣的外來投資,半數以上來自歐盟,原因在於許多既有台灣分公司將資產技術轉移至歐洲總部,以及數項 新投資案在台進行所致。總計歐盟在台投資已累積至150億美元,其中逾半來自荷蘭(90億美元),其次分別為英國(40億美元)與德國(17億美元),歐 盟累計投資台灣金額,2006年甚至超越美國與日本,成為台灣最大外資,比例高達20%。

在人員交流方面,2006年台灣前往歐盟國家的台灣旅客人次較2005年增加逾10%,簽證核發數便超過33萬份,創下歷史新高,前往歐盟深造的台灣學子人數也不斷升高,2006年超過1.2萬人,較10年前成長一倍,估計現在有2.5萬名以上的台灣學生在歐洲就學。

三、壯大台灣、結合亞太、佈局全球

從2000 年以來,台灣經濟表現比以前差很多。從前我們是亞洲四小龍的第一名,現在變成最後一名,在國際競爭力上也一步步下滑,今年瑞士洛桑管理學院(IMD)的世 界競爭力排名,大陸第一次超越台灣,我們去年17名,今年倒退到18名,大陸卻從18名進步到15名。一般認為台灣競爭力下滑,主要是因為政府政策不正確 所致。

我認為我們當前要改善經濟,創造就業機會。我的基本理念是:

第1,經濟的事盡量照經濟的法則來做。前一陣子經濟大師諾貝爾獎得主孟岱爾(Mundell)來台時,我向他請教有關台灣經濟發展的問題時,他就是這樣說的。

第2,要救台灣經濟必須「務實開放」。民進黨的鎖國政策七年多下來,嚴重影響企業正常發展,不能再持續下去。

第3,影響經濟發展的非經濟因素需要排除。一方面要建立政黨合作模式,讓國內政治穩定,另一方面要和大陸在「和平共榮」的前提下,簽訂和平協議,推動兩岸經貿正常化。

第4,經濟發展必須兼顧公平正義和永續發展。民進黨執政以來,貧富差距創歷史新高,我們必須縮短這個差距,同時,還必須重視綠色環保的問題,以善盡地球村成員的責任。

在這四個基本理念的前提下,我們希望能壯大台灣、結合亞太、佈局全球。我們的經濟發展藍圖有三個願景,那就是把台灣發展成:全球創新中心、亞太經貿樞紐及台商營運總部。

我們的目標是:在2008年後每年經濟成長6%,2011年時每人平均所得兩萬美元,並創造10萬個就業機會,使失業率降到3%以下。簡單的說,我們要再創「台灣錢淹腳目」的繁榮景象。

為了達成前述目標,我認為有兩項重要的工作要先做。

(一)開放三通直航

我若當選,一定儘速推動兩岸海空直航。讓兩岸往來更為便利,節省時間及金錢,同時,也希望台灣能夠成為歐商前進大陸的跳板。

(二)在「和平、繁榮」的前提下,促進兩岸關係正常化

除 了陳水扁總統的五不(Five no’s)之外,我提出「五要」主張,包括在九二共識下,重新啟動兩岸談判、兩岸簽署30~50年和平協議、兩岸經貿正常化並邁向兩岸共同市場、台灣國際 空間及加強兩岸文化交流,讓中學生可以來台灣讀大學。我相信我們可以和大陸取得互信,雙方可以在「和平」(peace)和繁榮(prosperity)的 兩大目標下,為企業界創造一個雙贏的兩岸關係。台商對大陸投資,則採取「原則開放、例外管理」的鬆綁政策,讓企業可以自由發展。

四、結語

我在擔任台北市長時,便非常重視台北歐洲學校,台北歐洲學校要興建新校區,我們極力配合,就是希望台北提供一個良好的環境,讓國際人才來台灣居住與工作時,不用擔心小孩就學的問題。

希望台北歐洲學校的成立,能夠讓更多的國際人才居住在台灣,吸引更多的國際人才到台灣居住與工作,使台北成為一個國際村。謝謝各位!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Gap between Rich and Poor: The Ministry of Finance should not be an Accomplice
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 16, 2007

Globalization and new technological developments are relentlessly changing the world. But to some people, the world is not flat. In fact, it is less and less flat, because life is harder than ever. During the past decade, more and more middle income families have found themselves joining the ranks of the poor. This worsening income disparity is something the ruling regime must face up to.

Yesterday this paper, in an article entitled "Taiwan's Nouveaux Pauvres," pointed out that globalization, new technology, industrial restructuring, and other factors, have given birth to a Nouveaux Pauvres class outside of the traditional class of "old, infirm, sick, and children." Its numbers are estimated at 1.38 million people. These were members of the middle class who formerly enjoyed a comfortable existence, but have suddenly become borderline poor. They do not qualify for the government's low income household subsidies. When they fall on hard times, they may be tempted to take the quick way out.

According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) family income survey, the wealth disparity between Taiwan's households, after reaching a 90 year high, has diminished. But has it really? According to newspaper opinion polls, 84% of those surveyed felt that the wealth disparity was serious, and 51% of those surveyed worried about becoming poor. Obviously public perception and official statistics are poles apart.

The increasing gap between rich and poor on Taiwan over the past decade has exceeded everyones' expectations. According to Ministry of Finance Financial Data Center figures, the ratio of households with annual incomes in excess of 10 million NT vs. those with annual incomes below 370,000 NT has increased from 1:48 to 1:55. Among households with annual incomes over 10 million NT, the average household income is just under 20 milllion NT. This is 836 times the income for households with annual incomes below 370,000 NT. These figures are shocking.

But the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics and Financial Data Center reports grossly underestimate the income of the wealthy. Past investigators relied primarily on surveys. The wealthy often underreport their incomes. Genuinely poor people are hard to to locate. Capital gains and profits from real estate transactions are even larger loopholes. These are the major sources of income for the wealthy. Financial Data Center tax revenue figures do not include overseas income and capital gains. In recent years, many bosses of newly listed companies received cash dividends approaching 100 million NT. High tech firms award their staff bonuses and produce many millionaires. By contrast, eight out of ten low income households squeak by on fixed salaries. In recent years wages for labor have stagnated. Consequently the income of the wealthy has increased at a rate far exceeding that of the poor. An increase in the gap in between rich and poor is inevitable.

In its annual report the Asian Development Bank bluntly stated that the fruits of Taiwan's economic growth are being enjoyed exclusively by the wealthiest 20% of households, and this will endanger future economic growth. The result of the increasing gap between rich and poor is weak consumer demand and increasing social tensions. Nepal and Burma all living examples.

The widening gap between rich and poor is a result of globalization. It is especially serious in the US. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is dee[;u concerned. In his newly published autobiography, he pointed out that technological innovation and competition-driven globalization has become the primary factor in many countries' centralization. The wages of high tech specialists have skyrocketed, while middle and low income salary growth has stagnated. The income of the wealthy over the past 25 years has grown rapidly, causing the gap between rich and poor in America to worsen day by day. He felt that reducing wealth inequality would depend on education and a policy of open immigration.

Famed American economist Paul Krugman pointed out that between 1979 and 2005, middle class American household net income grew only 13%, while the richest 1/10th of one percent of household incomes grew 296%. Most people assume the the increasing gap between rich and poor is due mainly to advances in technology and globalization. Krugman believes politics plays a more important role. The large scale tax cuts of George Bush Jr's conservative Republican administration in particular have created these unforgiveable results.

In recent years the government has aggressively promoted its tax reduction policy, going down the same road as the Bush II administration. If we examine the government's income redistribution policy, we see that 90% of it depends on social welfare, and only 10% of it depends on tax revenues. Tax cuts reduce wealth disparity by a factor of only 0.15. This means income redistribution by means of tax cuts doesn't work. Expanding the scope of tax cuts may lead to a point where benefits vanish altogether.

The government's real estate tax cuts and inheritance tax cuts have benefitted mostly the wealthy. In order to upgrade industry, major stockholder dividends enjoy investment tax cuts, income from negotiable securities are tax exempt, and future income tax exemptions for individual capital gains are currently under study. Because interest income accounts for six tenths of the income of the wealthy, an interest income related tax cut measures will only worsen the disparity between rich and poor.

Our nation's tax rates are already among the lowest in the world. A tax policy flagrantly biased in favor of the rich has turned Taiwan into a paradise for the rich and a hell for the poor. Poor people bear a disproportionate part of the tax burden. Is this the society everyone was hoping for? Unfortunately the Ministry of Finance, which is responsible for national tax policy, has become a "tax reduction department," and forgotten the meaning of tax equity and justice. If this trend is not reversed, the Ministry of Finance will become an accomplice responsible for widening the gap between rich and poor, in which case it may as well change its name to reflect its true function.

中時電子報
中國時報  2007.10.16
貧富差距擴大 財政部莫成幫凶
中時社論

 全球化與新科技的發展,讓世界變平了;但是對某些人而言,這個世界是不平的,甚至越來越不平,因為生活比以前更苦了。最近十年來台灣越來越多中等收入的家庭發現自己正在邁向貧窮之境,這種所得分配惡化的趨勢,已經到執政當局必須正視的時候了。

 本報在昨日製作的「台灣新窮人」專題中,指出在全球化的效應下,受到新科技的發展、產業轉型等因素影響,一群有別於傳統「老、弱、病、童」的新窮人誕生,估計至少有一三八萬人。這原本是一群日子過得不錯的中產階級,卻突然跌落貧窮的邊緣,由於不屬於政府低收入戶補助範圍,一旦陷入困境,最容易走上絕路。

 依主計處家庭收支調查,台灣的高低所得家庭貧富差距在九十年達到最高峰,之後趨於緩和,但台灣的貧富差距真的縮小了嗎?根據本報民調顯示,八成四受訪者認為貧富差距嚴重,五成一受訪者擔心淪為窮人,顯然民眾的實際感受與官方統計有很大的距離。

 十年來台灣的貧富差距擴大,超乎各界預期。財稅資料中心統計,年所得逾千萬的富人與所得卅七萬以下貧窮家戶相比,十年來的差距由四十八倍增加至五十五倍;其中,千萬大戶平均股利所得近二千萬元,更是窮人的八百三十六倍,相當驚人。

 而不論是主計處或是財稅資料中心的報告,都嚴重低估富人的所得。前者以調查為主,富人容易低報所得,真正的窮人則找不到,更大的漏洞則是未統計股票與土地買賣所得,這是富人最大的財富來源。財稅資料中心的納稅所得,則未包括海外所得與證券交易所得。

 近年來,許多上市櫃公司大老闆領取現金股利動輒上億元,高科技的員工分紅亦產生許多百萬富翁;相對地,低所得家戶有八成以上靠薪資所得,近年來勞工薪資成長停滯。因此,富人財富增加的速度遠超過窮人,貧富差距擴大是必然的。

 亞洲開發銀行在年度報告中直指,台灣經濟成長果實由所得最高廿%的家庭獨享,將危及經濟成長。貧富差距擴大的結果,民間消費低迷,也會引發社會緊張。尼泊爾、緬甸都是活生生的例子。

 貧富差距擴大是全球化的現象,美國尤其嚴重。聯準會前任主席葛林史班亦關切貧富差距問題,他在最新出版的自傳中指出,新科技創新與競爭帶動的全球化,成為各國所得集中的主要因素。專業技術者的工資大幅攀升,中低所得者薪資成長停滯時,而富人所得在過去廿五年來快速成長,使得美國貧富差距日益惡化。他認為要縮小貧富不均,要靠教育與開放的移民政策。

 美國知名經濟學者克魯曼(Paul Krugman)指出,自一九七九年至二○○五年間,美國中產家庭的實質所得僅成長十三%,但最有錢的千分之一的家庭所得成長了二九六%。多數人認為貧富差距擴大主要是新科技進步與全球化因素使然,但是,克魯曼認為,政治扮演更重要的角色,保守派共和黨主政時期,尤其是小布希時代推動大規模減稅政策,造成不可原諒的後果。

 近年來政府不斷推出減稅政策,與布希政府走相同的路。檢視政府的所得重分配功能,有九成是靠社會福利,只有一成來自租稅,而租稅縮小所得差距的倍數只有○.一五倍,顯示租稅的所得重分配功能不彰,如果再繼續擴大減稅規模,那麼可能連這一點點功能都不見了。

 這些年來政府不斷提出減稅案,從調降土增稅到遺產稅,受惠最大的都是富人。此外,從促進產業升級條例來看,大股東股利所得可享受投資抵減,而且證券交易所得免稅,未來更研議取消個人的股利所得稅。由於千萬富豪的股利所得占六成以上,任何有關股利的減稅措施,都將使得貧富差距更加惡化。

 我國的租稅負擔率已是全球最低,租稅政策嚴重向富人傾斜的結果,台灣成為富人的天堂,窮人的負擔反而加重,這樣的社會難道是大家所期盼的?令人遺憾的是,負責國家租稅政策的財政部幾乎成為減稅部,完全忘了租稅的公平與正義,如果這樣的趨勢無法扭轉,財政部淪為擴大貧富差距的幫凶,那財政部乾脆改名算了。