Friday, April 30, 2010

Disaster Prevention: No Slogans Please. Just Pass the Geology Act

Disaster Prevention: No Slogans Please. Just Pass the Geology Act
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 30, 2010

A few days ago, a landslide occurred on National Highway Number 3, near Keelung Road. An entire section of mountain near Cidu Road suddenly gave way, blocking traffic in both directions. Nearly twenty million tonnes of earth and rock slid down the side of the mountain. The situation was truly shocking. This was the first time a landslide stopped traffic on the National Highway System. So far three cars and four bodies have been discovered. The emergency response phase is over. What follows will be recovery, restoration, and a search for accountability. The landslide was not preceded by days of heavy rain. The landslide was not preceded by an earthquake. That is why even President Ma Ying-jeou, who visited the disaster site, said it left him with a "creepy feeling."
According to reports, Transport Minister Mao Chi-kuo initially speculated that substrata slippage caused the the disaster. According to geological experts, a dip slope was probably to blame. The road was located on a dip slope. The substrata consisted of relatively soft sandstone and shale. Years of erosion, plus days of rainwater infiltration, led to slippage and the landslide. The Highway Department, after several days of investigation, determined that National Highway Number 3, going north to south, has a total of 32 locations where this type of dip slope occurs. The sections range from 59 meters to nine kilometers in length. The longer dip slopes are located in the southern section. The northern section has 19 dip slopes. The central section has five dip slopes. In other words, the same disaster could happen again at any time.

National Highway Number 3 has dip slopes. Hillside residences on dip slopes also merit attention. In 1997, the Lincoln Mansions condominium in Xizhi collapsed. Government agencies placed 340 residences located on dip slopes in the Greater Taipei area on their watchlist. But because the Geology Act failed to pass, this information has yet to be released. It is our understanding that the Geology Act has been in the channel since 1996. The Legislative Yuan completed a third reading in 2004. But special interest groups exerted pressure. Forty or so legislators forced reconsideration of the proposal, and eventually killed it. The Executive Yuan has formally submitted a draft bill to the legislature for consideration.

A government is duty bound to provide information about environmental safety. Yesterday we had the Lincoln Mansions disaster. Today we have National Highway Number 3 disaster. Both the executive and the legislature must say no to special interest groups. They must pass the Geology Act, as soon as possible. They must ensure full disclosure of geological information, and expand the range of remedies.

Taiwan is located in an active seismic zone. Typhoons and floods occur almost every year. Helping the public avoid geologically sensitive and vulnerable areas should be the government's number one priority. Unfortunately disaster prevention maps and data are grossly inadequate. Providing information about faultlines, dip slopes, and other relevant information has not been a high priority. The disaster maps completed in recent years are almost all small scale maps at 1:30,000 or 1:50,000 scale. By contrast, urban planning maps or urban land maps are large scale maps at 1:1000 or 1:5000 scale. The two simply do not compare. When even the most basic maps are unavailable, how can we talk about disaster prevention?

Disaster prevention must not be all talk and no action. It must solicit the views of professionals. Domestic disaster prevention is a case of "five minutes of enthusiasm." Once the emergency has passed, it is as if nothing had ever happened. In the past, with public works or other construction, people worried only about the construction phase. When it came to environmental studies, geological surveys, and land planning, they merely went through the motions. That nothing untoward happened with most of these projects is a miracle. If the agencies in charge refuse to make systemic changes, and appreciate the importance of planning, surveys, and design, if they pay attention only to the construction phase, then more landslides will occur, one after the other.

The government's top priority should be to make full use of existing professional talent and technical equipment, to create an integrated national land monitoring body. This body will provide basic information on the island's 36,000 square kilometers of land. Changes in topography, geology, ecology, hydrology, and vegetation will be made available to everyone. This data will help government agencies make disaster preparedness decisions. It will enable the public to avoid dangerous sites, or to make disaster prevention and mitigation plans in advance, minimizing the extent of the disaster. Therefore, we call for an integrated 10 year plan for national land monitoring. We call for the creation of large scale 1:1000 or 1:5000 maps, complete with landslide, flooding, earthquake faultline, and dip slope information. These will enable people to identify which sites are environmentally fragile and sensitive, and enable them to keep their distance.

Every day tens of thousands of people drive on the national highways. They are required to pay tolls for these roads. They have the right to expect that these roads are safe. If in the future people who use the national highways also have a "creepy feeling," and are forced to worry about landslides, then a hundred apologies from the government will be meaningless.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.30
防災別光喊口號 《地質法》快立法
本報訊

國道三號近基隆路段日前傳出山崩意外,靠近七堵路段整片山壁突然崩落,造成雙向車道封閉,近廿萬公噸土石瞬間滑下,走山情況令人怵目驚心。這也是高速公路史上第一次因山崩斷橋封路。目前已尋獲三車與四具遺體,初步救災已經告一段落,接下來展開的將是一連串善後復原與責任追究。由於事件現場既沒有連日豪雨,造成土石崩落情況,事前也沒有任何地震,因此連前往現場勘災的馬英九總統都直說心裡毛毛的。

據報載,交通部長毛治國初步推測可能是地層滑動肇禍。而根據地質專家現場研判,很可能是順向坡惹的禍,因為該路段屬於順向坡地質,地質上屬於比較鬆軟的砂頁岩,長年風化,加上連日的雨水滲透地表,帶動山坡滑動,因而造成這次走山。而高公局經過幾天的調查也發現,國道三號這類型順向坡情形從北至南共有卅二處,長度從五十公尺至九公里都有,較長的順向坡多集中在南部,北部路段順向坡也有十九處,中部路段有五處。換言之,同樣的情形不是不會重演。

除了國道三號順向坡外,山坡地住宅安全是否位於順向坡也連帶受到關注。民國八十六年,汐止「林肯大郡」倒塌後,相關單位將大台北地區三百四十處位於順向坡的山坡住宅列管,但就是礙於《地質法》沒有通過,這項資訊迄今未能公布。而據了解,這部《地質法》從民國八十五年就開始推動,民國九十三年立法院還完成三讀程序,但由於受到利益團體杯葛,還是被四十位立法委員提出覆議,硬是被拉下來,未完成法案立法工作,而目前行政院已經將該法案草案正式送交立法院審議。

提供一個安全的環境資訊是政府責無旁貸的事,從過去林肯大郡到現在的國道三號走山事件,不管是行政或是立法部門,都應該排除各種相關利益團體的干擾,在最短時間內完成《地質法》立法工作,讓不安全的地質資訊充分揭露,進而展開相關補救措施。

台灣位處地震頻繁區域,風災水害也幾乎每年都會,如何讓國人盡量避免前往地質敏感與脆弱地區,就成為防災最重要工作。遺憾的是,台灣的防災地圖基本資料相當貧乏,包括斷層帶、順向坡等相關資料建置工作,並未受到重視,迄今所完成的防災地圖,幾乎都只是三、五十萬分之一,或是幾萬分之一的小比例尺地圖,和目前實際都市計畫或非都市土地地圖一千分之一或五千分之一大比例尺地圖相比較,根本無法套用,連最基本可用地圖都沒有,遑論防災了。

防災更不是光靠嘴巴說了就算了,必須尊重專業,反觀國內防災都五分鐘熱度,等災害過了,什麼事情就好像沒有發生一樣。過去無論在公共工程或是其它建築上,大家只重視工程施工,各項環境地質調查與規畫幾乎都虛應故事,這樣的工程,不出事只憑運氣,如果相關單位不再從制度面改變,重視規畫、調查與設計,只強調施工,類似的走山事件亦將層出不窮。

政府當務之急要做的是,好好地利用現有的各項專業人力,以及周全的科技儀器,整合建立一個國土監測單位,讓三萬六千平方公里寶島土地上的各種基本空間資訊,包括地形、地貌、地質、生態、水文、植生等各項變化,都能在日常生活的環境中受到確實的掌控。因為這些資料的建立與分析,不僅可以提供政府單位進行防災決策的參考,更可以讓民眾,可以選擇不危險的地方,或事前做好避災以及減災的工作,使災害減少至最低的程度。因此,我們呼籲,立即推動十年國土整合監測系統計畫,建立一千分之一或五千分之一大比例尺寸土石流、淹水、地震斷層、順向坡等災害地圖並公告,讓民眾知道那些地方是環境脆弱敏感地區而能趨吉避凶。

要知道,每天有數以萬計的民眾會開上國道,他們該繳的過路費一塊都不會少繳,「安全上路」是他們最起碼的權益,如果民眾今後上了國道還感到會「毛毛的」,冷不防那個路段又來個走山,政府再道一百次歉都是沒用的!

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Tsai Ing-wen's Problem: A Lack of Policy, not a Lack of Eloquence

Tsai Ing-wen's Problem: A Lack of Policy, not a Lack of Eloquence
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2010

During the Two Yings Debate, Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen did not do as well as expected. Not surprisingly, she has been mocked by the Blue Camp. Surprisingly, elements within the DPP and the Green Camp have engaged in covert schadenfreude, and overt mockery. Their reaction is incomprehensible. Because if Tsai Ing-wen cannot win this debate, then other DPP heavyweights stand no chance at all.
Schadenfreude is an unwillingness to see others succeed. It is part of human nature. Competition within the DPP is cuthroat. DPP elders are adopting the attitude: "Another rival has been laid low!" They are not taking advantage of the debate to reflect on the future of the DPP. They are passing up a valuable opportunity to contemplate the DPP's future. Individuals so short-sighted can hardly be entrusted with the heavy responsibility of ruling a nation.

These attacks, leveled against Tsai Ing-wen by DPP elders, merely reveal these elders' own limitations. For example, some elders argue that since Ma Ying-jeou's approval ratings were at their nadir, Tsai Ing-wen should not have agreed to debate him, thereby raising his ratings. But this is wishful thinking. The DPP is vehemently opposed to ECFA. It has even called for a referendum. A debate was inevitable. The DPP has long paid ritual lip service to the democratic process. Surely it does not intend to keep the public in the dark? Surely it does not intend to demand a referendum even as it hides the facts from the people?

Most commentators, not merely those in the Green Camp, think Tsai Ing-wen lost because she came across as an academic or policy wonk immersed in a class debate. Even Tsai Ing-wen herself feels that her political rhetoric was not up to Ma Ying-jeou's. But this underestimates the intelligence of Republic of China voters. After all, the Republic of China holds elections year in and year out. Political rhetoric flies back and forth, day in and day out. Voters long ago learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. The reason the Two Yings Debate was a rout for the DPP was centrist voters. For them the debate offered two clear and divergent paths for national governance.

Ma Ying-jeou has been promoting ECFA. His short term goal is to alleviated the pressure exerted by ASEAN plus One. Affected industries may suffer losses due to high tariffs. The Blue and Green Camps each have their own arguments. But industry losses are a hard fact, Some industries may suffer losses as high as 8 or 9%. Our national leaders cannot turn a blind eye to them. In the medium term, ECFA is a more feasible means to integrate Taiwan's economy with the rising economies of East Asia. In the short term, weak industries may be harmed. But the Ma administration has weighed the risks and benefits. It has offered a workable option that cannot be cavalierly dismissed as "political rhetoric."

Tsai Ing-wen found herself at a disadvantage because she was honest enough to forsake the Democratic Progressive Party's populist, anti-ECFA rhetoric. Unfortunately the alternative she set forth does not appear to be feasible. She wants the WTO's multilateral system to safeguard Taipei's interests. But the WTO has repeatedly blocked the Doha Round negotiations. She wants to adopt the the Washington/Taipei TIFA (Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement) model. But this model is incapable of dealing with Taipei/Washington trade tariff issues. It is even less capable of dealing with FTAs and tariff reduction agreements between major trading nations.

Tsai Ing-wen did not lack eloquence. She lost the debate because her policy proposals were unworkable. At least she made an effort to come up with alternatives. Democratic Progressive Party heavyweights who are secretly gloating should ask themselves a question. What was the real reason they opposed a Two Yings Debate? Was it because they knew that without the cover of Taiwan independence ideology, and charges that their opponents were "pro reunification" or "selling out Taiwan," they were incapable of offering any concrete policy prescriptions?

Even Tsai Ing-wen, who stressed the importance of policy oriented debate, was deeply pessimistic about ECFA. For example, she worried that the products manufactured by Taiwan businessmen on the Mainland would use their tax-free status to undercut manufacturing on Taiwan. But NCCU Professor Chen-Yuan Tung conducted a study of 1019 Taiwan and foreign based companies. If Taipei becomes part of the integrated East Asian economic system, 23 to 37% of the companies surveyed would increase their investments on Taiwan. If Taipei and Beijing entered into economic integration agreements, 29 to 42% of the respondents would increase their investments on Taiwan. Also, every industry unanimously recommended that Taipei first enter into economic integration agreements with Beijing, and only then into agreements with Washington, the European Union, and others.

The study also pointed out that "Taiwan must resort to Sinicization. Only Sinicization could expedite its objective of Globalization." "Sinicization and Globalization go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive."

Chen-Yuan Tung was Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council under the former DPP government. He was also a member of the DPP's China Affairs Committee. If Ma Ying-jeou were to make such a recommendation, the DPP could perhaps ignore him. But these recommendations were made by a middle-aged scholar concerned about Taiwan's plight. They cannot ignore him. The DPP has attempted to overcome cross-Strait problems through globalization. But current trends make it virtually impossible to globalize by bypassing the Mainland. This was Tsai Ing-wen's fundamental problem during the debate.

Given Tsai Ing-wen's dilemma, the DPP has no cause for gloating. Because this is not her personal problem. This is a new international political and economic scenario the DPP must address. If the DPP is unable to address this scenario, winning or losing the debate is a minor matter. Whether the DPP can return to power, that is the truly major matter it ought to worry about!

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.29
社論-蔡英文口才沒問題 是政策出問題
本報訊

雙英辯論後,表現不如預期的民進黨黨主席蔡英文,備受對手藍營譏評,並不令人意外;形勢詭異的是,民進黨綠營人暗爽的有之,公開嘲諷的有之,這是個奇怪的反應,因為,如果蔡英文辯論都不能佔上風,其他的民進黨大老能佔上風嗎?

幸災樂禍、見不得別人好,這是人性,更不用說競爭性相當強烈的民進黨。不過,如果民進黨大將抱持「又打下一個對手」這種心態,不能藉由這次的辯論來反省民進黨的未來,就錯失了一個重新檢視民進黨未來的機會,如此短視近利的心態,恐怕很難被付以治國大任。

事實上,就以民進黨大老事後對蔡英文的批評,就可看出很大的侷限性,例如,有大老認為,馬英九聲勢已在谷底,蔡英文不應該同意辯論為其拉抬聲勢,這是掩耳盜鈴。民進黨強烈反對ECFA政策,更主張交付公投決定,則論辯是無法迴避的,對民主程序念茲在茲的民進黨,總不好意思要採取愚民政策,不告知人民詳細內容,就要進行公投吧!

至於,不只綠營、一般評論都認為,蔡英文是敗在太拘泥於學者、專業形象,辯論有如上課,連蔡英文都自認,她比不上馬英九的「政治」語言。不過,這樣的說法稍微低估台灣選民的「政治智商」,畢竟,台灣年年選舉、日日政治口水,選民早就練就從沙礫中找出黃金的功力,雙英辯論之所以評價有差距,其實是中間選民,從中歸納出兩條不同的治國路線。

馬英九提出的ECFA,短期內是要因應「東協加一」生效的需要,即使受影響產業關稅損失,藍綠陣營各說各話,但損失是確定的,有些產業損失更高達八、九個百分點,國家領導人不可能視而不見;另外,中期而言,ECFA是台灣與正在崛起的東亞經濟體接軌、一個較為可行的方案,即使短期內有弱勢產業受損的風險,但這是馬政府權衡利弊得失之後,所拿出的可行方案,不能全以「政治語言」視之。

蔡英文的不利之處在於,她誠實的放棄了民進黨向來反ECFA的政治或民粹語言,但她提出的替代方案,目前卻看不出可行性,她希望以WTO的多邊體制來維護台灣利益,但WTO杜哈回合談判一再受阻;她希望採取美國、台灣間的TIFA(台美貿易暨投資架構協定)模式,但這模式不但無法處理台美貿易關稅問題,更別說要因應經貿重要國家紛紛洽簽FTA減免關稅的趨勢。

因此,蔡英文並不是輸在口才,而是在政策內容的可行性,但她至少努力提出替代方案。那些心中暗爽的民進黨大老可能要捫心自問:如果少了意識形態的保護,不能動輒就抬出「統派」、「賣台」的大帽子,他們還能在辯論場合拿出什麼具體政策方向,這難道是他們認為雙英不應該辯論的真正原因!

其實,即使強調政策辯論的蔡英文,面對ECFA時仍然是充滿悲觀的態度,例如,她擔心台商在大陸的商品利用免稅優勢回銷,打擊台灣產業,但根據政大教授童振源對一○一九家台灣企業與外商的調查,如果台灣加入東亞經濟整合體制,百分之二十三到三十七的受訪企業會增加對台灣投資;如果兩岸簽訂經濟整合協定,百分之二十九至四十二的受訪企業會增加對台灣投資。而且,各類企業均一致建議台灣要簽訂經濟整合協定的優先對象是中國,其次才是美國、歐盟等。

調查更指出,「台灣要借重『中國化』的手段,比較容易達成『全球化』的目標」。「『中國化』與『全球化』是相輔相成,而不是相互對立的」。

童振源不但曾在民進黨政府時代擔任陸委會副主委,更曾是該黨中國事務委員會幹事,民進黨也許可以不管馬英九怎麼說,但是面對中生代學者針對台灣處境所提出的思考,他們卻不應該忽視。過去,民進黨曾經想以全球化來克服兩岸之間的難題,但是,現在的趨勢卻是,跳過中國,幾乎不可能全球化,這才是蔡英文辯論時要面對的根本困難。

所以,面對蔡英文的處境,民進黨大老更沒有幸災樂禍的理由,因為這不是她個人的問題,而是民進黨能不能針對新的國際政經情勢調整,如果答案是不能,則辯論輸贏事小,能不能順利重返執政,才是他們該擔心的關鍵大事!

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Liberty Times Should Publish Its Raw Polling Data

The Liberty Times Should Publish Its Raw Polling Data
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2010

Ruling and opposition leaders recently held a debate on ECFA. The next day a number of media organizations published their poll results. Their results were nearly identical, differeing by at most one or two percentage points. The overall picture was consistent. A majority of the public felt President Ma Ying-jeou fared better in the debate than Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Public understanding of ECFA and public support for ECFA showed substantial increases. Only the Liberty Times' poll results differed. Once in a blue moon, media polls will result in large discrepancies. But the Liberty Times published its numbers on the front page, in banner headlines, in a clear violation of professional conventions, not to mention professional ethics. The Liberty Times should immediately publish the raw data behind its recent poll results, allowing neutral parties to verify its results, and confirm its credibility. Otherwise it will be misleading or deceiving its readers.

Polls are an important part of contemporary democratic society. Using objective data, citizens can track public support for their political leaders and their policy proposals. The numbers will speak for themselves. This is why politicians in democratic nations dare not ignore the polls. They believe polls are accurate reflections of public opinion. That is why polls must reflect public opinion in fact, and not just in name. That is why polls must be conducted in accordance with strict professional procedures. That is why they must be scientific and free from bias, to prevent special interests from misusing them or even perpetrating frauds. Put simply, a polling organization can survive only if it maintains its credibility.

Every modern polling association, including the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the National Opinion Polls Council (NCPP), and the World Association for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR) has strict standards for poll results released to the media. News reports on poll results must include the sponsor of the poll, the conductor of the poll, a complete list of the poll questions, the poll sample, the sampling methods used, the sample size, the response rates, the polling technique, the time frame, the margin of error, and the sample weighting. The poll published on the front page of the Liberty Times on the 26th of this month violated virtually every one of these standards for professional procedures and professional ethics.

A polling organization will normally conduct over a hundred polls a year. The Liberty Times "Polling Center" has conducted only three polls over the past five years. Each of these polls was conducted at a critical juncture, for example, just before an election. Each time its results were the exact opposite of all other polling organizations. Why did the Liberty Times set up its "Polling Center" only at these critical junctures? When exactly did the Liberty Times set up its "Polling Center?" How many polls has it conducted over the years? Who was in charge? Who were its key members? What kind of polling expertise and polling experience did they have? Outsiders have no idea. Professional pollsters would also like to know. After all, the poll included at least 10 questions. It was conducted on a Sunday, when finding respondents is the most difficult. It was conducted between 5:00pm and 8:30pm, at dinner time. In order to poll at least 1,300 individuals, one needs at least 50 pollsters. We would like to know just exactly where the Liberty Times "Polling Center" is located. What kind of telephone equipment does it have? How large is it? How many pollsters does it have in its employ? How much polling experience do they have? These are concrete and specific questions concerning manpower and equipment. The Liberty Times should have no difficulty answering these questions in order to establish its bona fides to a skeptical public.

We of course are curious why the Liberty Times poll results diverged so drastically from those reached by other media organizations. We are not implying that the results were faked. What we want to know is why the Liberty Times chose not to publish the poll questions? Isn't this the most basic requirement for any polling organization when it publishes polling data? If the poll questions were omitted due to space considerations, can't they provide a copy of the questionnaire? Can't they tell us what questions were asked, in what order, to establish their credibility? It is bad enough the poll questions are nowhere to be found. What's worse is that the Liberty Times has raised so many questions with its "news poll," yet it is choosing not to provide any of the procedural details. For example, what was the structural composition of the respondents? What proportion of the respondents were blue or green camp supporters? How was the poll weighted? How many respondents refused to answer? What was the success rate? These are all "standard operating procedure." If the Liberty Times "Polling Center" is sufficiently professional, how can it omit this information?

Even more interesting was the question of public support for ECFA. As many as 36% answered "don't know / have no opinion," far higher than for other media organizations. As many as 50% of respondents between the ages of 20 and 29 were undecided. As many as 45% of respondents 30 and over were undecided. Meanwhile, only 29% of those over 60 were undecided. Experience and common sense tell us this poll was substandard. Normally the older the respondents, the higher the undecided rate. The results of the Liberty Times poll were just the opposite. Would the Liberty Times care to offer an explanation in response to public doubts?

The best way to allay public doubts is for the Liberty Times "Polling Center" to immediately submit the telephone numbers and recorded telephone conversations, along with the original data, to scholars and professionals, for neutral and objective review, allowing them to confirm their authenticity and reliability. This the very least any "polling organization" can do when its credibility is brought into question. Did the Liberty Times "Polling Center" in fact conduct a poll? If it did, it should have no trouble providing this raw data.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.28
社論-自由時報應公布民調「原始資料檔」
本報訊

朝野政黨領袖日前就ECFA舉行政策辯論會後,多家媒體次日立即公布相關民調數據,基本上各媒體所反應的民眾意向差別並不大,縱有一兩個百分點落差,總體趨勢倒是一致的,即占多數民眾傾向認為馬總統的表現較蔡英文主席佳,同時對ECFA內容的知曉程度、乃至對ECFA的支持程度,都較以往大幅上升。這中間唯獨自由時報一家媒體所公布的數據,與其它機構完全不同。儘管媒體公布民調出現彼此數據鉅幅落差者不是沒有,但自由時報這篇刊登在頭版的民調新聞,不僅明顯違反諸多民調專業程序,更違反諸多報導民調新聞應有的專業倫理。我們認為該報應立即提供此次民調的「原始資料檔」,供中立機構查核以昭公信,否則就是在誤導讀者甚至欺騙讀者。

誰都知道,民調是當代民主社會的重要機制之一,透過一組客觀的數據,不論是一時一刻民眾對政治領袖的支持程度、對政策取向的偏好程度等,全數都一覽無遺。這亦是為何所有民主國家的政治人物都不敢忽略民調,因為他們相信這就是民意的真實反應。但也因為這樣,民調也被要求必須要反應「真實」的民意;換言之,任何民調的執行都得遵守一套嚴格的專業程序,也都必須堅持科學與誠信的原則,以防其被有心人士私心濫用甚至惡意偽造。講得再直接一點,任何民調機構能夠存活的第一原則,就是「公信力」!

這亦就是當代所有民調協會組織,包括美國民意研究協會(AAPOR)、全國民意調查評議會(NCPP) 、世界民意研究協會(WAPOR)等,都曾針對媒體在發布民調訂有一套相當嚴格的標準,責求所有公開發布「民調新聞」都必須要完整交待民調的贊助者是誰、執行者是誰、完整問卷題目、調查的母群體及抽樣方法、樣本大小及完成率、施測的方式及時間、調查結果的精確度如抽樣誤差的估計、加權或推估程度等。從上述標準看來,我們必須要說,自由時報在本月二十六日在該報頭版所發布的民調數據,幾乎背離了所有民調發布專業程序與倫理。

一個正常運作的民調機構,一年至少也要執行上百次以上的民調,然而自由時報的「民調中心」過去五年有紀錄可查的只發布過三次民調,而且都是選在關鍵時刻(如選前),公布與所有民調機構調查結果完全相反的數據。至於這個只在重要時刻才上班的「民調中心」,究竟何時成立?每年進行幾次民調?負責人為何?主要成員為何?具有何種民調專業與經歷等,外界一直諱莫如深,民調界也一直都很好奇。畢竟一份連同基本資料至少十題的民意調查,在最難找到受訪者的星期天執行,選在五點至八點半又是用餐時間,要完成一千三百多份的民調,最起碼得要有一個五十人以上的訪員規模才能執行,我們很想知道的是:自由時報民調中心的地點在哪裡?電訪用的設備是什麼?規模有多大?訪員有多少人?有多少訪問經驗?這些實體的人力與設備,自由時報對外公布一下以昭公信,應該不困難吧!

當然,我們對自由時報這次發布的民調數據,為何與其他媒體民調落差那麼大感到很好奇!我們並沒有暗示這份民調是否可能做假,我們想追問的是:為什麼不公布完整的問卷題組?這不是任何民調機構公布民調數據時最起碼的前提嗎?如果先前因為版面考量漏登了,可以提供全份問卷、題目的問法與順序以昭公信嗎?讓我們更感到好奇的,還不只是「問卷題目」不見蹤跡,自由時報這則「民調新聞」還有諸多該交待,但卻未交待的程序細節。例如這份調查受訪民眾的樣本結構為何?支持藍綠的受訪者比例各有多少呢?加權方法為何?拒訪率有多少?成功率又有多少呢?這都是所有民調新聞發布的「基本作業程序」,自由時報民調中心如果夠專業,怎麼漏掉了呢?

更耐人尋味的是,對於民眾是否支持ECFA的調查上,這份民調新聞回答「不知道/無意見」的比例竟高達三六%,比其他媒體都還高出許多,同時二十至二十九歲受訪者未表態比例高達五成,三十餘歲者未表態的也有四五%,但六十餘歲的銀髮族,未表態比例只有二九%,明顯與民調實務與常理不合。所有民調均可發現,年齡愈高者未表態的比例就愈高,本次民調卻恰好相反!針對這一點,自由時報可否給個說法,以釋外界的疑問呢?

我們以為,要澄清外界質疑最好的方法,就是請自由時報「民調中心」立即提供成功樣本的電話號碼與電話錄音,以及調查過程的原始資料檔,供中立客觀的學術專業機構進行複查,以確認其數據的真實性與可靠性,這是所有「民調機構」面對質疑時,「昭公信」最起碼的動作,自由時報「民調中心」如果確實做了民調,針對外界種種質疑,公布這些「原始資料」,應該一點都不困難吧!

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Legislative Review: Absolutely Necessary!

Legislative Review: Absolutely Necessary!
United Daily News editorial editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2010

Confronted by a massive wave of opposition, the Legislative Yuan postponed its third reading on the "Personal Information Protection Act." It reverted to a second reading of the bill, subjecting it to review, and amending those provisions that stifle freedom of the press. This is the only way to prevent this bill from becoming law -- bad law. There is no other way.

If legislators still do not realize the gravity of the situation, and insist on a third reading, then the Executive Yuan will be forced to veto it. This will waste time. It will also leave behind an embarrassing record of a KMT-ruled Executive Yuan vetoing legislation passed by a Legislative Yuan with a KMT absolute majority.

In the name of "protecting personal privacy," the KMT-dominated legislature has created a huge pitfall for freedom of the press and online freedom of expression. Promoters of the "Personal Information Protection Act" set their sights too high, even as they resorted to methods too underhanded. Ironically, until the ruling and opposition parties subjected it to joint review, many legislators still did not realize what was wrong with the bill. All they could do was to consult with the Executive Yuan. This scenario accurately reflects the abysmal quality of proceedings in the Legislative Yuan.

Last Tuesday, during the second reading, the Legislative Yuan passed 17 bills in a single breath. The legislature resembled an auction house. It reverberated with the sounds of auctioneering, bidding, and gavel banging. Was anyone giving serious consideration to the impact of these bills on society and the public? Some Blue Camp legislators proposed that elected representatives be exempt from the law. But when their colleagues reprimanded them, they jettisoned exemptions for the media as well. Green Camp legislators initially expressed vehement opposition to the "Chiu Yi Clause." They were concerned only with blocking it, and ignored all other considerations. The result was ruling and opposition legislators colluded in suppressing freedom of the press in the Republic of China, then reveled in the fact they had exempted themselves from their own laws.

The Ministry of Justice behaved barbarically, acted hastily, and shirked responsibility, in a manner that left onlookers aghast. During interpolation in the legislature, the Ministry of Justice held a public hearing. It invited representatives of impacted industries to participate. Among the broadcast media it invited only one Green oriented media organization. This bill has far ranging implications. Yet the public hearing was so flagrantly lopsided and biased. How can it possibly win the public trust? How can it possibly represent the views of the media as a whole? How can a meeting shot through and through with such selectivity, "heed the voice of the people?"

Even more frightening was the "media exemption" clause included in the Ministry of Justice's original draft. During the public hearing, the "Taiwan Rights Committee" advocated "equal treatment." The result? Media exemption was eliminated in one fell swoop. The entire process was truly mind-boggling. The news media is the Fourth Estate. This is true the world over. How can it be compared to the credit industry, the securities industry, or the banking industry? That a human rights group would harbor such a deep bias against the media, staggers the mind. The Ministry of Justice lost sight of its duties. It failed to assert itself before the fact. It shirked its responsibility after the fact. It demeaned its own role as the foremost legal authority in the nation.

The executive and legislature behaved rashly. They created an stumbling block with the "Personal Information Protection Act." The act abrogates freedom of the press. It turns ordinary netizens into lawbreakers. Abuses of privacy occur mainly when large corporations misuse or leak information about individuals stored in their databases. While dealing with these, the executive and judiciary have revealed just how embarrassingly incompetent they are. According to the new law, the government's dragnet will be tight. Whether it can catch information thieves is unknown. But people will post group photos of students in Facebook. People will post photos of Spring Scream concerts in Kenting in their personal blogs. These photos may not have received the "consent" of every person in them. The poster may be charged with violating other peoples' privacy. Endless disputes may arise. Will the executive and the judiciary have the time and manpower to cope with them? If not, won't this law be meaningless?

To violate freedom of the press in order to protect peoples' privacy, is an example of intellectual confusion. It is uncalled for. It is not worthwhile. If one casts a dragnet, but fails to catch real criminals, but instead inadvertently catchs young netizens in the trap, one's good intentions will wind up as social harassment. Worse still, if this giant dragnet becomes a magic cape that protects corrupt officials and profiteers, while binding investigative journalists who expose corruption hand and feet, who will be the beneficiaries?

Ruling and opposition party legislators are now willing to conduct a joint review. This shows they realize the seriousness of the problem. Ruling and opposition party legislators created this mess. Ruling and opposition party legislators must clean it up. They are not merely salvaging the Personal Information Protection Act. They are also salvaging their personal images. Last Friday the ruling and opposition parties discussed how they would review the Personal Information Act. Green Camp legislator Liv Wong flat out refused. Business taxes nearly became collateral damage, and had to undergo emergency review. How can legislators not feel ashamed about their performance?

復議,復議,非復議不可!
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.27 03:03 am

在巨大的反對聲浪下,立法院暫緩「個人資料保護法」的三讀,並決定以「復議」方式將法案退回二讀,對扼殺新聞自由的相關條文重新修正。這恐怕是拯救這部法案免於淪為「惡法」的唯一途徑,捨此之外,別無他途。

除非立委仍不明白此事之嚴重性,堅持要將法案依原樣付諸三讀;那麼,屆時勢必要由行政院提起「覆議」。如此,不僅曠日廢時,還將留下一筆國民黨主政的行政院對國民黨佔絕對多數的立法院覆議的難堪紀錄。

打著「保護個人隱私」的大旗,卻對新聞自由與個人網路行為布下漫天巨網和匝地陷阱,「個資法」只能說是眼太高而手太低。可笑的是,直至朝野決定聯合提出復議,許多立委仍弄不清法案到底什麼地方出了問題,只能回頭找行政部門共商大計。這種景象,其實真切地反映了立法院一向的議事品質。

上周二讀那天,立法院會一口氣通過了十七個法案,大賣場般的不斷宣讀、喊價、落槌,誰會認真思考手上法條對社會、對民眾有何影響?原來主張民代免責的藍軍立委,因受同僚指摘,卻連媒體的免責權也棄而不顧;原來強力反對「邱毅條款」的綠營立委,則一心一意只在阻擋,無心關注其他。就這樣,朝野立委聯手封殺台灣的新聞自由,還洋洋得意於自己保護個資的「成就」。

法務部的粗疏、草率和卸責,同樣讓人不忍卒睹。在立法徵詢過程中,法務部舉辦的公聽會,邀了諸多相關業者與會,其中傳媒業竟只邀請了一家綠色媒體與會。一個涉及廣泛的法案,公聽會竟然作如此單一、偏頗的安排,如何能昭公信?又豈能代表整體媒體的意見?而一場充滿選擇性思維的會議,又如何達到「聆聽公意」的目的?

更可怕的是,法務部原提的草案中列有「媒體免責」的條款,竟因「台權會」在公聽會中主張要「一視同仁」,就一刀把媒體的免責權給斬掉了,這真是難以想像的事。新聞媒體是第四權,舉世皆然,如何和徵信業、證券或銀行業相提並論?一個人權團體卻對媒體存有如此深的偏見,實在令人瞠目結舌;而法務部自身本末不分,事前不能據理力爭,事後又一味推諉卸責,未免把法務主管機關的大責任做小了。

由於行政與立法部門的草率,「個資法」所設下的阻障,不僅侵犯了新聞自由,也將使個人電腦使用者在網路上動輒可能觸法。試想,目前個人資料遭侵犯的問題,主要發生在握有大宗個戶資料的企業管理失當,因而遭到濫用或洩露;對付這些,行政及司法機關都已技窮力絀,窘態畢露。若依新的個資法,政府把管制的羅網編織得那麼細密,能不能抓到個資大盜還未可知;但民眾在「臉書」放上同學會合照,或者在個人部落格張貼墾丁春吶音樂會圖片,都可能因「未徵求同意」而被控侵權。對可能源源不絕的糾紛,行政及司法部門有足夠的人力和時間應付嗎?如果不能,那麼此法豈非將形同虛設?

為了保障民眾個人隱私,把新聞自由也一起賠進去,完全是思維錯亂所致,不僅毫無必要,更是不值得。而如果佈下天羅地網,抓不到真正的刁鑽歹徒,反讓年輕網民動輒誤觸陷阱,這個法案的美意將變成可怕的社會騷擾。更何況,如果這張巨網最後變成了保護貪官汙吏或奸商惡徒的金鐘罩,媒體工作者的揭弊報導遭綑手縛腳,那又便宜了誰?

朝野立委願意聯合提出復議,顯示他們意識到問題的嚴重性。朝野立委共同捅出的婁子,朝野立委共同出面收拾,這不只是在搶救個資法,也在搶救立委自己的形象。上周五,就在朝野共商個資法如何復議之際,綠委翁金珠一聲無厘頭的「反對」,讓營所稅險遭錯殺,只好也緊急動用「復議」搶救。這樣的立法品質,立委能不汗顏?

Monday, April 26, 2010

Globalization without China: Is It Possible?

Globalization without China: Is It Possible?
United Daily News editorial editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 26, 2010

The key controversy during the Two Yings Debate was over globalization, specifically "Is globalization possible without Mainland China?"

Chairman Tsai Ing-wen said the DPP's policy was to "move closer to the rest of the world, then move toward [Mainland] China together with the rest of the world." She said that the KMT's policy is to "move closer to the rest of the world through Mainland China." President Ma Ying-jeou retorted the DPP's globalization was "globalization without Mainland China."

One should not look only at the areas of disagreement between the Two Yings. This debate also highlighted the main area of agreement between the KMT and the DPP. Both the KMT and DPP agreed that Taiwan must confront globalization and cannot avoid interaction with the Mainland. This the Two Yings agree upon. Their disagreement is over how to globalize and how to interact with the Mainland.

Alas it is impossible to talk about globalization without talking about the Mainland. Taiwan has geographical and cultural links to the Mainland. Globalization without the Mainland is impossible. One reason is that Mainland China is both the world's marketplace, and the world's factory. No government in the world can globalize without Mainland China. Besides, Taipei is subject to political constraints from Beijing. If Beijing is hostile to Taipei, Taipei cannot globalize by going around Mainland China. President Ma said that of course we must not put all our eggs in one basket. But Mainland China is undeniably "the biggest of all the baskets."

President Ma Ying-jeou did not press Tsai Ying-wen for alternatives. He was apparently afraid Tsai Ying-wen might have something up her sleeve. He was afraid to walk into a trap. Instead he waited for Chairman Tsai to offer alternatives on her own. He avoided responding to a proposal advanced by Green oriented think tanks to "move plants for high tariff industries to Mainland China or Southeast Asia." He knew it would be difficult to present a convincing case. Actually, Tsai Ying-wen's "move closer to the rest of the world, then move toward Mainland China along with the rest of the world" concept is old hat. It is the tired old "indirect transit" concept, and hardly qualifies as a "workable alternative." Tsai floated one alternative after another, including talking to the United States, Japan, EU, and ASEAN through channels such as the WTO and APEC. None of these alternatives were anything more than wishful thinking. They were all a waste of time, lacking in feasibility and persuasiveness.

The two sides arrived at another important consensus. Interactions between Taipei and Beijing entail considerable political risk. Chairman Tsai repeatedly stressed the importance of strategic and political risk awareness. President Ma meanwhile, declared said he knew perfectly well Beijing's goal was "peaceful reunification" and "one country, two systems." Of course he knew the risks. Since both of them understood the risks, the only difference was how to respond to the risks. Chairman Tsai wanted to evade and procrastinate. President Ma wanted to confront the risks head on. Nothing ventured nothing gained. In other words, Ma and Tsai differed only in their policies, not in whether they want to "sell out Taiwan."

Chairman Tsai said Taiwan must avoid bringing about a "China-centered East Asian political and economic structure," and reiterated the strategic and political risk. Is Chairman Tsai contending that Taipei should assume the role of "preventing the rise of China?" To begin with, the rise of Mainland China is not necessarily detrimental to cross-Strait peaceful development. If anything, the danger posed by the rise of Mainland China is less than that posed by its collapse. Furthermore, is the rise of [Mainland] China something that Taipei should rush to prevent? Is the rise of [Mainland] China something that Taipei even has the wherewithal to prevent? Chairman Tsai is surely aware that over the past decade or so the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian regimes predicated their rule on the "Coming Collapse of China Theory." They brought the nation to its current state. Does Chairman Tsai really want us to dedicate ourselves to "preventing the rise of [Mainland] China?"

This debate had important political repercussions. For the first time, the major parties have explored cross-Strait policy qua policy, rather than as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan" or other populist irrelevancies. In fact, given our predicament, there is no such thing as a "risk free Mainland policy," any more than there is "globalization without [Mainland] China." Tsai accused Ma of rashness, and said that was not the answer. Ma asked Tsai whether evasion and procrastination were the answer. Ma and Tsai each had their own policy perspectives. Tsai was defensive. Ma was aggressive. Each complemented the other. If cross-Strait policy ceases to be characterized as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," then the ruling and opposition parties should be able to find a middle ground.

Unfortunately the debate may not ease social frictions. It may even intensify them. Why? Because the DPP insists on seeing the debate as an internal political struggle. It has no real desire to seek a cross-Strait policy consensus. Especially since yesterday Tsai Ing-wen did not perform as well as expected. The debate may touch off infighting within the DPP, with some arguing "What's the use of reasoning?" To moderate infighting, the DPP will inevitably fall back on rhetoric about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," exacerbating social frictions and confrontation.

In fact, the debate may have a greater impact on power struggles inside the DPP, than on power struggles between the Blue and Green camps. Pundits initially assumed that if Tsai did well in the debate, the "Princes of the DPP" might feel threatened. Since Tsai did not perform as well as expected, the debate was a setback for her. In the short term, the Princes of the DPP and Taiwan independence elements may pressure Tsai to run for Xinbei City Mayor, in the hope of undermining her power and authority. But Tsai Ing-wen will not willingly walk into their trap. In sum, Tsai Ing-wen failed to gain any political points from the debate. Instead, the DPP lost its commanding advantage. Yesterday Tsai demanded a rematch, showing she knew she had lost.

Public attention is currently focused on who won or lost. But Ma or Tsai won a two and a half hour verbal joust. Nothing more. Will Taiwan's economy be a winner or loser? Will Taiwan's economy prosper or decline? Can we find a way out of our current dilemma? That will not be decided by a Two Yings Debate. That will be decided by the grim struggle that is to follow. The strategic future of Taiwan, the Mainland, and the world as a whole, will be decided by whether the public on Taiwan can present a united front to the outside world.

有無可能實現「沒有中國大陸的全球化」?
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.26 04:09 am

雙英辯論的核心爭議是:對於台灣來說,有無可能實現一個「沒有中國大陸的全球化」?

蔡英文主席說:民進黨的政策是「走向世界,跟隨世界走向中國」,國民黨的政策則是「透過中國走向世界」。馬英九總統回說:民進黨的全球化是「沒有中國大陸的全球化」。

不要只看到雙英的歧見,其實這段辯論卻點出了國、民兩黨的主要共識,那就是:台灣必須面對全球化,也無可避免與中國互動。這是雙英皆同意的共識,雙方的歧見只是在如何全球化及如何與中國互動。

然而,現在談全球化,沒有不談中國的;尤其以台灣與大陸的地緣及人文關係,更無可能排除中國大陸而談全球化。原因之一是中國已是世界市場及世界工廠,全世界談全球化皆不可能不處理與中國的互動關係;再者,台灣確實受到北京在政治上的牽制,更不可能在與中國敵對下,繞過中國而談全球化。馬總統說,當然不能把所有的雞蛋放在同一個籃子裡,但中國大陸卻是「最大的籃子」。

馬總統並未逼問蔡英文有何「替代方案」,似乎顧慮蔡備有奇招,唯恐引蛇出洞。等到蔡主席自己道出了若干「替代方案」,卻避過了綠色智囊所主張的「高關稅產業移至中國或東南亞設廠」等主張,顯然知道難登大雅之堂;而她所謂的「跟隨世界走向中國」,其實仍是過去「中轉間接通航」的思維模式,難謂是有效的「替代方案」;至於她所提出的經由WTO或APEC等機制逐項與美、日、歐盟、東協談判,則屬一廂情願、曠日費時,亦欠缺可行性與說服力。

雙方的另一重要共識是:台灣與中國大陸互動,有極高的政治風險。蔡主席幾度提及應有戰略及政治上的風險意識;馬總統則乾脆明白指出,北京的目標是「和平統一/一國兩制」,並強調他當然知道這種風險。既然雙英皆有風險意識,歧見在於因應風險的對策。蔡主席主張迴避、拖延,而馬總統則主張積極迎對,不入虎穴焉得虎子。也就是說,馬蔡歧見只在政策觀點的異同,而不是「賣台」與否。

蔡主席說,台灣必須注意,不要促成一個「以中國為中心的東亞政治經濟架構」,此即蔡幾度強調的戰略與政治風險。這樣的觀點,是認為台灣應當對「阻止中國崛起」承當起國際角色;然而,一則「中國崛起」未必不利兩岸「和平發展」(比中國崩潰對台灣的威脅小),二則中國崛起難道應由台灣率先出頭阻擋,又難道是台灣阻擋得了的?蔡主席應知,過去十餘年李扁二任政府以「中國崩潰論」為治國憑藉,以致誤國至今日田地,如今難道要改以「阻擋中國崛起」為治國依據?

這場辯論會所創造的最重要的政治效應是,兩黨首度將兩岸議題作為一個「政策」來探討,而不在「傾中賣台」那樣的民粹語言中糾纏。其實,就台灣的艱困情勢而言,幾乎沒有一種「沒有風險的大陸政策」,如同也不會有一個「沒有中國大陸的全球化」;蔡指馬的冒進不是辦法,馬則說蔡的躲與拖何嘗是辦法?然而,馬蔡二人的政策觀點,蔡的防備,與馬的進取,誠多可以相互補充之處。如果不再將兩岸議題操作成「傾中賣台」那般的內部鬥爭,則台灣應當可以在「進取」與「防備」之間找到一條出路與活路。

但是,這場辯論恐怕未必能使社會對立趨於緩和,反而可能更趨尖銳。因為,民進黨認定這場辯論乃是一場台灣內部的政治鬥爭,而不是真正要為兩岸政策來凝聚認同及建立共識。特別是蔡英文昨日的表現不如預期,將使民進黨內掀起「說理有什麼用」的內鬥;為消化內鬥,自難免重新祭起「傾中賣台」的大旗,升高放大社會的對立與鬥爭。

其實,這場辯論對民進黨內部權力與路線鬥爭的影響,也許尚大於對藍綠角力的影響。原本想像,倘若蔡在辯論中表現優異,可能使黨內天王感受威脅;如今蔡的表現卻不如預期,對天王而言,則是重挫蔡英文的契機。立即發生的效應或許是,天王及獨派催迫蔡投入新北市長選舉以耗損其聲勢的動作可能升高,而蔡英文不願墜入陷阱的警覺心也相對加強。總括而言,蔡英文並未由這場辯論獲得政治紅利,反而在黨內失去了原本居高臨下的優勢;她昨天馬上主張再辯一次,顯現了她的失落感。

社會視聽的焦點如今集中在辯論雙方誰輸誰贏的問題,唯不論是馬贏蔡,或蔡贏馬,這畢竟只是一場兩個半小時的辯論而已;然而台灣的出路與生路問題,卻絕不止是一場雙英辯論的輸贏這麼簡單的事,而是整個台灣與兩岸新局及世界新局的一場嚴峻搏鬥,台灣在這場慘烈搏鬥中的輸贏,才是真正的輸贏。而台灣致勝的前提,是必須將無休無止的內鬥,轉為共同一致對外尋求出路與活路。

Friday, April 23, 2010

Closed Door Policy and Phobia of Mainland Students: What Century are We Living In?

Closed Door Policy and Phobia of Mainland Students:
What Century are We Living In?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2010

Fear leads to retreat. Retreat leads to conservativism. Conservatism leads to isolationism. Confronted with the rise of Mainland China, Republic of China citizens must not be afraid. We must not retreat, because we cannot retreat. We must meet the challenge head on. We must make ourselves more competitive. We must solidify our advantage. The path of conservativism is not the path to competitiveness. Just the opposite. We must have unparalled confidence in the appeal of our democratic institutions. We need not refuse to allow Mainland students in. If anything, we should shine a spotlight on Taiwan, induce young people from the Mainland to accept Taiwan, like Taiwan, and take the good from Taiwan back to the Mainland.

Whether Mainland students' academic qualifications should be recognized, and whether they should be permitted to study on Taiwan been debated for two years. Our public and private schools are ready. The sticking point is the Legislative Yuan. Most regrettably, when the principals of public and private universities from across the land appeared before the Legislative Yuan to familiarize themselves with the committee's progress, physical violence erupted. A mere committee meeting led to a melee. Clearly, when the relevant bills are submitted for second and third readings, the confrontations will only get worse.

Why are Democratic Progressive Party legislators so obstinately opposed to Mainland students studying on Taiwan? The reason they give is limited educational resources. They fear that once Mainland students have finished their studies, they will seek employment on Taiwan. They will take the civil service exams, apply for occupational licenses, and reduce job opportunities for young people on Taiwan. Also, they fear that once the two sides open up, students from Taiwan will have fled even before Mainland students arrive. Their objections are utterly baseless. One. The Ministry of Education is providing additional slots for Mainland students. Not one student from Taiwan will be displace. Two. The Ministry of Education is not providing Mainland students with one thin dime in student aid. No scholarships are involved. Three. As the Examination Yuan has reiterated, ad infinitum, Mainland students will not be permitted to take the civil service exams. According to the laws of the Republic of China, only Republic of China citizens can take the civil service exams. Four. The Ministry of Education has yet to allow a single Mainland student to study on Taiwan. Yet outstanding high school students from Taiwan have already chosen to study on the Mainland, in Europe, or in the United States. Young people hope to expand their horizons and connect with the outside world. Adult policy makers, fret not. Five. As long as universities on Taiwan remain competitive, we should remain courageous and determined, confident in our ability to attract outstanding young people from around the world, including the Mainland. We need not worry about our children going abroad or to the Mainland. The free flow of human talent is a global trend. Only by welcoming this trend can we increase our economic momentum, and ensure that we remain at the crest of the global wave.

The Republic of China has been democratic for over two decades. It created an economic miracle and underwent a quiet revolution. What does it have to be afraid of? Even during the Cold War, when we refused to compromise with the CCP, the Republic of China citizens never feared the PRC. On the contrary, Republic of China citizens have long been confident that we were on the right path, the path toward democracy and openness. History has proved us right. The Mainland has forsaken authoritarianism and embraced democracy and the market economy. Now that it has take this step forward, Republic of China citizens on Taiwan should exert as much influence as possible to prevent the Mainland from backsliding. Education is an indispensable link that can only increase our influence. The DPP is terrified that the Mainland will dispatch hordes of young people from the Mainland to Taiwan as part of a "war of reunification." A "war of reunification" sounds terrifying. But a war of reunification is not the least bit frightening. What is a war of reunification, but allowing you to stand where I stand, and see what I see? Allowing Mainland students to study on Taiwan, is to allow young people from the Mainland to stand on Taiwan, and see what we see. What's wrong with that? What's so terrifying about that?

Fear is natural. A mouse for example, naturally fears a cat. But Republic of China citizens are not mice. The relationship between the Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China, historically and culturally, has never been the relationship betwen a mouse and a cat. It is the relationship between a big cat and a kitten. Who is the big cat? Who is the kitten? History has been a roller coaster. The Republic of China was once on an equal footing with the Peoples Republic of China. What reason do we have to demote ourselves? What reason do we have to think of ourselves as mice, and hide whenever we see a cat?

The Democratic Progressive Party refuses to allow Mainland students to study on Taiwan. They need a refresher course on cross-Strait relations. Have they forgotten they were the ones who took to the streets and demanded that Chiang Ching-kuo allow veterans to visit relatives on the Mainland, and to permit cross-Strait exchanges? Many founders of the DPP have visited the Mainland. Many of their friends and relatives have studied on the Mainland. DPP leaders are not afraid they will be brainwashed. Why should they be afraid that courageous young people who embrace the outside world will not be able to stand up to a "war of reunification?"

The DPP ruled for eight years. Its "Avoid Haste, Be Patient policy" stalled our economy for eight years, undermining its competitiveness. Doe it now intend to impose a policy of "Avoid Haste, Be Patient" in academic affairs? We have no problem admitting global talent. Why must we exclude talent from the Mainland? The rise of Mainland China is a reality that cannot be ignored. Cross-Strait exchanges are an unstoppable historical trend. The two sides cannot return to Cold War confrontation. We must confront and cope with all manner of cross-Strait relations, including education and culture. The DPP was once in office. It hopes to be in office again. It is aggressively promoting its "Platform for the Coming Decade." Therefore it cannot avoid dealing with cross-Strait relations. If it does, that will be the Achilles Heel that prevents the Democratic Progressive Party from ever returning to office.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.23
都什麼時代了 還在鎖國拒陸生
本報訊

恐懼讓人退縮,退縮造成保守,保守的結果就是封閉。台灣面對崛起的中國大陸,不能恐懼,更不能退縮,因為台灣退無可退,我們只能正面迎戰,以更堅強的競爭 力,穩住台灣的優勢。要塑造競爭力,保守絕對不是辦法,相反的,台灣更要以無比信心,相信民主體制的吸引力。從這個角度出發,台灣不但不必拒絕陸生來台, 還要發揮台灣的光與熱,吸引大陸年輕人接受台灣、喜歡台灣,從而把台灣的好處帶回大陸。

然而,承認大陸學歷與開放陸生,討論兩年,全國公私立大學都做好準備,就是卡在立法院無法放行。最遺憾的是,當全國各公私立大學校長列席立法院,了解委員 會審查進度的時候,立法院竟是以爆發四波肢體衝突收場,委員會如此,可以想見,未來相關法案送進院會二、三讀的時候,衝突只會更大。

民進黨立委為什麼堅持反對開放陸生來台?說法是他們擔心教育資源遭到排擠,陸生讀完書在台工作,考公職、拿證照,更排擠台灣年輕人的工作機會,還有,兩岸 一開放,陸生還沒來,台生就跑光光。這樣的反對完全沒有道理。第一,陸生來台在教育部的規畫裡,是附加名額,完全不佔台灣考生的缺;第二,教育部的規畫裡 不給陸生一毛錢補助,沒有獎學金這檔子事;第三,考試院多次申明,陸生不能考公職,事實上,根據中華民國的法律,只有中華民國的國民才能考公職;第四,教 育部沒開放陸生前,已經有台灣優秀的高中生,選擇赴大陸,甚或赴歐美,年輕人都擴大視野與全球接軌的企圖心,決定政策的大人何須憂心;第五,只要台灣大學 具有競爭力,理應有更大勇氣和魄力,吸引全世界優秀年輕人,包括大陸,不必擔心自己的子弟出國或到大陸,人才交流是潮流、是趨勢,只有迎向這個潮流,才能 創造台灣不斷成長的動力,永遠讓台灣站在世界頂端的浪頭上。

台灣民主開放廿多年,創造了經濟奇蹟和寧靜革命,還有什麼可畏懼的?即使漢賊不兩立的年代,台灣從沒對大陸心生恐懼,相反的,台灣一貫有強烈的信心,走在 民主開放的正確道路,事實也證明,中國大陸終於也從專制封閉的體制,走向民主開放和市場經濟,這步路既已向前,台灣更應該發揮強大的影響力,不要讓中國大 陸回頭。教育,當然是強化影響力、不可或缺的一環。民進黨人擔心,大陸大張旗鼓派出年輕人來台,有統戰的因素,從字面上看,「統戰」很恐怖,其實統戰一點 不可怕,就是統一戰線,讓你站在我這邊,從這個角度看,開放陸生來台,就是讓大陸年輕人站在台灣這一邊,有什麼不好?有什麼可怕?

恐懼,可能是一種天性,就像老鼠怕貓一般。但是,台灣不是老鼠,台灣與中國大陸的關係,不論從歷史或文化淵源看,也不該是老鼠與貓,而是大貓與小貓,誰是 大貓、誰是小貓,因為歷史情境的推移互有消長,本來該與中國大陸平起平坐的台灣,何必自己矮一截,誤認自己是老鼠,見貓就躲呢?

拒絕陸生來台的民進黨人,從新回味兩岸關係史,不要忘記,當年,還是民進黨人(黨外)站上街頭,呼籲蔣經國開放老兵返鄉探親,開放兩岸交流,民進黨創黨大 老們登陸交流者,所在多有;晚近親友赴大陸修習學位者,更歷歷可數,民進黨人不怕自己被洗腦,為什麼怕更勇於迎向世界的年輕人,會經不起「統戰」?

民進黨執政過八年,戒急用忍讓台灣經濟競爭力停滯了八年,難不成現在還要搞學術的戒急用忍?台灣可以接受全球人才,為什麼要排斥來自中國大陸的人才?中國 崛起,已經是無法忽視的事實;兩岸交流,已經是擋不住的歷史方向,兩岸既回不到漢賊不兩立的年代,就要正視、處理各種類型的兩岸關係,教育文化當然是無法 迴避的一環。曾經執政、還準備再執政的民進黨,既積極討論準備提出「十年政綱」,就不能迴避處理不可逆的潮流下的兩岸關係,因為這將是民進黨再執政的最大 罩門。

Thursday, April 22, 2010

No Closed Doors! Taiwan Needs Glasnost and Perestroika

No Closed Doors! Taiwan Needs Glasnost and Perestroika
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 22, 2010

What Taiwan needs is glasnost and perestroika, i.e., openness and reform. Deng Xiaoping's trademark was openness and reform, or more precisely, reform (gai ge) and openness (kai fang). Thirty years ago Mainland China had hit bottom. Openness and reform allowed the Mainland to experience a rebirth. Today its "peaceful rise" has made the world sit up and pay attention. It may make some on Taiwan uncomfortable, but we need to say it anyway. What Taiwan needs is openness and reform!

The DPP in particular, needs to hear this.

The Republic of China was once an international exemplar of openness and reform. It had a highly liberalized economy, and a highly democratized political system. These were achievements of openness and reform. But globalization, the proliferation of regional economic organizations, the end of Cold War confrontation, and the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, provoked a reactionary counter current. This counter current opposes reform, opposes openness, and demands for a Closed Door Policy. If this reactionary counter current cannot be overcome, it is unlikely the Republic of China will be able to meet its future challenges.

Taiwan faces a new strategic scenario. One. Globalization. Two. The rise of Mainland China. Mainland China has become the world's factory and the world's marketplace. Three. The small scale of Taiwan's economy. Taiwan has been unable to shed its export-oriented economic model. It must remain linked to the global division of labor chain. It cannot ignore Mainland China. Four. The Republic of China has a free and democratic system. It cannot prevent people from making use of resources from both sides of the Strait to prosper and survive. In other words, openness is the only way out for Taiwan. The government's political and economic reforms must move in the direction of openness.

The real crisis for the government on Taiwan is that it can no longer prohibit the outflow of personnel and capital. Over the past decade or so the government erected all manner of barriers to prevent outside resources from flowing in. The result was resources flowed out, never to be replenished by resources flowing in. The concept of "keeping one's root in Taiwan," and "turning Taiwan into an Asian Pacific Platform" turned out to be impossible and impracticable.

The controversy over Mainland students studying on Taiwan is a clear example. Students from Taiwan have not been prevented from studying on the Mainland. But the DPP is using all its might to prevent students from the Mainland from studying on Taiwan. The Mainland recognizes academic test scores for students from Taiwan. It allows students to use these scores to gain admission to Mainland universities, particularly exceptional students. It even grants them "treatment as citizens," allowing them to obtain occupational licenses and to seek employment on the Mainland. By contrast, the KMT's policy for students from the Mainland includes "three restrictions and six prohibitions." The Democratic Progressive Party's policy is even worse. It calls for an across the board ban. Such is the perverse nature of our Mainland policy. It cannot stop the outflow, and can only stop the inflow. Actually the problem extends far beyond Mainland students studying on Taiwan. It impacts the long term balance in cross-Strait exchanges. It has a major influence on the humanities and politics. One need only look at what overseas Chinese contributed to Taiwan upon their return to appreciate the impact Mainland students on Taiwan could have on society and culture. Besides, for a Closed Door Policy to work, one must block the exits in addition to the entrances. What's the point of blocking the entrances without blocking the exits?

The cross-Strait economic agreement (ECFA) is a perfect example of blocking the entrances without blocking the exits. Trade between Taiwan and the Mainland cannot be stopped. But resources from Taiwan have long flowed toward the Mainland. Taiwan meanwhile, has lost its appeal to Taiwan capital and foreign capital. We are even more resistant toward Mainland capital, and politely decline. This includes the long-term ban on Mainland tourists visiting Taiwan. This is hemorrhaging without recirculating, because recirculating has been deliberately obstructed

Most people see only ECFA's outflow, for example, tariff reductions. Of course this is conducive to the exchange of capital between Taiwan enterprises and the Mainland. But critics fail to see ECFA's inflow. This inflow improves investment conditions on Taiwan. It makes Taiwan capital, foreign capital, and Mainland capital more inclined to invest in businesses on Taiwan. This is conducive to "keeping one's roots in Taiwan." The economic and trade provisions of the DPP's Closed Door Policy have always locked the entrance but not the exit. During its eight years in office, the DPP significantly increased cross-Strait economic interdependence. But it did nothing to "keep one's roots in Taiwan" and to "prevent Taiwan's marginalization." The Democratic Progressive Party opposes ECFA. But in a perverse sense, it is opposing "keeping one's roots in Taiwan" and "turning Taiwan into an Asian Pacific Platform."

Taiwan faces globalization. It faces regional economic organizations such as ASEAN plus N. Taiwan faces Mainland China, which has "peacefully developed" into the world's factory and the world's marketplace. Taiwan must implement perestroika and glasnost, i.e., reform and openness. Of course there will be pain. But unless we open up, we cannot increase our competitiveness. We will lose our attractiveness to global capital. Opening up will improve the conditions required to "keep our roots in Taiwan." Allowing Mainland students to study on Taiwan and signing ECFA are essential to promoting openness and reform.

A Closed Door Policy is unworkable. A Closed Door Policy that blocks only the entrances but not the exits is even less workable. The DPP sees students and capital from Taiwan flowing toward the Mainland. But all it can do is deceive the masses by posturing as a "champion of neglected industries." All it can do is sit back and watch Taiwan's gradual marginalization. One thing is certain. The more the DPP clings to its policy, the less it will be able to keep students on Taiwan, the less it will be able to keep businessmen on Taiwan. Because human and financial capital will never stay in a society whose competitiveness becomes weaker by the day, whose attractiveness declines by the day. Openness will surely inflict suffering. But only reform will offer us hope.

The engine of Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening was the emancipation of the intellect. The DPP could do worse than heed Deng's wisdom.

反對鎖國 台灣需要改革開放
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.22 02:01 am

台灣現在需要的是改革開放。改革開放是鄧小平的品牌標語,使得三十年前極度破敗的中國脫胎換骨,如今以「和平崛起」之姿令世人刮目相視。縱然說起來會使國人覺得不太舒服,但是我們仍要說:台灣現在需要的是改革開放!

這句話,尤其要說給民進黨聽。

台灣原是「改革開放」的國際楷模。高度自由化的經濟,與高度民主化的政治,皆是「改革開放」的成就。但是,值此全球化及區域經濟組織成為國際主流之際,又值兩岸關係從冷戰對抗轉向和平發展之時,台灣卻反而出現了一股「反改革/反開放」的鎖國逆流;如果不能打通這任督二脈,台灣恐怕難以迎對未來的嚴峻挑戰。

台灣當前所處的大局大勢是:一、全球化;二、中國崛起,成為世界工廠及世界市場;三、台灣的經濟規模甚小,不能擺脫出口導向的經濟形態,必須與全球分工鏈聯結,也就無法與中國大陸切割;四、台灣是自由民主體制,不能阻禁人民以兩岸為生涯平台。也就是說,「開放」是台灣唯一的生路,而台灣的政經「改革」亦應以「開放」為指向。

台灣真正的危機是:已無可能阻禁人員及資金向外流,十餘年來卻又設下種種障礙,阻禁外面的資源向內流。因而,台灣長期呈現資源外流的「出血」情勢,而不能形成「循環」;所謂「根留台灣」、「建設台灣為亞太平台」等思考,因而皆無實現的條件與憑藉。

是否開放陸生來台的爭議即是一例。台生赴大陸就學已無法阻禁,但民進黨卻全力阻擋陸生來台。大陸採認台灣學測成績讓台生免試入學,更針對台灣的「頂標生」,且以「國民待遇」准許台生考照及就業;相對而言,國民黨版的陸生政策則採「三限六不」,而民進黨更主張完全禁止。這就是「擋不住流出/只阻禁流入」的畸形政策。然而,陸生來台不止是「教育產業」的問題,更對兩岸交流的長期均勢,在人文上及政治上皆有極為重大的影響;只要檢視過去「僑生」返回居地後對台灣的回饋,即知陸生來台在社會及人文上所可能產生的重大意義。何況,鎖國政策必須鎖住兩頭才有用,豈能只鎖進不鎖出?

兩岸經濟協議(ECFA)又是鎖進不鎖出的一例。台灣在經貿上絕不可能與大陸切割,但長久以來,也只見台灣的資源流向大陸,而台灣卻對台資、外資漸漸失去扎根的誘因,對陸資更是敬謝不敏,包括曾經長期禁阻陸客來台觀光。這是「出血」,而無「循環」,且禁阻「循環」。

一般人只見到ECFA「向外流」的部分,例如減免關稅,當然有利於台企台資與大陸來往;卻未能注意,ECFA「向內流」的效應,這是因為改善了台灣的投資條件,使得台資、外資及陸資皆有更大的誘因在台灣投資,亦即有利於「根留台灣」。民進黨在經貿方面的「鎖國政策」,也一直是鎖進不鎖出;八年執政使兩岸經濟依存大幅提高,但對「根留台灣」及「防止台灣邊緣化」卻拿不出對策。民進黨反對ECFA,就某種意義而言,其實就是反對改善「根留台灣」及「將台灣建設為亞太平台」的客觀條件。

面對全球化及區域經濟組織東協加N,面對台灣必須與已經成為世界工廠及世界市場的中國「和平發展」,台灣必須「改革開放」。開放當然會有一定程度的痛苦,但不開放就不可能鍛鍊台灣自己的競爭力,亦不能維持台灣對全球資源的吸引力。開放,是為了提升「根留台灣」的條件,而陸生來台及ECFA等政策,皆是為了迎對「開放」,而必須有所作為的「改革」。

鎖國政策不可行,而「只鎖進/不鎖出」的鎖國政策尤其不可行。民進黨的這一套鎖國政策,恐將眼看著台生更流向大陸,台資更流向大陸;而只能以「弱勢產業代言人」的角色欺蒙群眾,坐視台灣一步一步趨向邊緣化。可以斷言,民進黨愈這麼幹,愈留不住台生,愈留不住台商;因為人才和資金不會守在競爭力日弱、吸引力日竭的下沉社會。「開放」必有痛苦,「改革」才有希望。

鄧小平「改革開放」的引擎口訣是「解放思想」,何妨借此四字勉民進黨?

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Has the Asian-Pacific Platform Been Resurrected?

Has the Asian-Pacific Platform Been Resurrected?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 21, 2010

Over the past few months, President Ma has been battered by the 8/8 Typhoon, the U.S. beef controversy, and a long string of other crises. These have led to him being characterized as weak and incompetent, and lacking any plan for governing the nation. Subsequent hikes in health insurance fees, confrontations between Yuan Presidents and Bureau Chiefs, and endless litigation, led to Health Director Yang's angry threat to resign. The Ma administration has been like a chicken with its head cut off, panicky and at a loss what to do.

The recent cabinet reshuffling left more than a few major national policy measures high and dry. The first time the new Minister of Economic Affairs spoke to the public, he announced plans for an "economic zone," one that had been studied and debated for months. But the Ministry of Finance strongly opposed lowering business taxes, and the Council of Labor Affairs brazenly refused to delink wages for foreign workers with the minimum wage. No consensus was reached even on these two matters. The Minister of Economic Affairs was left alone, hung out to dry, forced to abandon his plan.

Yet the "special economic zone" was a far more important policy than flood control bills, regulation of U.S. beef imports, and health care reform. It was a measure that could have extricated Taiwan from its economic predicament in one fell swoop. It could have allayed public doubts about economic liberalization. It could have provided momentum for economic growth. It could have underscored Taiwan's geographical advantage. It could have strengthened Taiwan's strategic hand in cross-Straits negotiations. Promoting the plan was a heavy responsibility, one that should have been borne by the nation's leaders. Instead, it was shouldered by a lowly minister. He was expected to override ministry heads of the same rank, and to determine its feasibility. How could he possibly succeed? People cannot help wondering, where were our leaders?

When the health insurance rate hike reached an impasse, President Ma suddenly laid down the law. The rates would be hiked according to the approach suggested by Health Director Yang. Health Director Yang withdrew his resignation. The public, which had sided with Yang, was mollified. But even as the rates were being hiked, low income insurees were being granted subsidies. Seventy percent of all insurees' fees would remain the same. Therefore Premier Wu's suggestion would also be honored. This amounted to a compromise, but one with careful thought behind it, and allowed both parties to hold their ground. President Ma also promised to promote the second generation health insurance plan. This may enable the first generation health insurance plan, with all its accompanying baggage, to be phased out. The rule of law, considered box office poison by the Legislative Yuan and frozen for years, rose like a phoenix from the ashes. The bill may even become law within the current legislative session. This "fling open the doors" approach has been much too rare since President Ma took office.

Disputes over health insurance have subsided. But the Industrial Innovation Act is again making waves. The Industrial Innovation Act should have been passed last year. Its purpose was to continue investment incentives and industrial upgrade measures introduced a half century ago. Its purpose was to provide companies on Taiwan with tax breaks and subsidies. Unfortunately over the past half century, the situation has changed dramatically. The government's finances are strapped. Tax breaks have been fully exploited. The Ma administration has no more tricks up its sleeve. The result has been a trendy catchphrase, "industrial innovation" -- nothing more than old wine in an old bottle.

Nor could the opposition DPP offer any sound alternative to this controversial legislation. The DPP knew only how to engage in blind obstructionism, and to create legislative deadlock. It obstinately dragged the process out, 100 days past the sunset of the Statute for Upgrading Industries. No resolution is in sight. Amidst this senseless stalemate, ruling party legislators quietly added an ultra low 15% operations headquarters tax for financial consortiums. This provoked an unexpected public backlash. The DPP took advantage of the situation to reduce the operations headquarters tax to 17.5%. The DPP was overjoyed, and promptly embraced it as an alternative to the Industrial Innovation Act. It won public approval, checked its opponent, and took the wind out of the ruling party's sails.

The DPP assumed that the KMT would not dare to follow suit. They never realized President Ma would "go with the flow." Ma swiftly made substantial changes to the party's version of the bill, dropping the tax rate to 17%. In retrospect the Ma administration clearly wanted to make major cuts in business taxes. But they was afraid to make the first move. They knew if they suggested any, the DPP would assume a contrarian stance. But once the DPP proposed a substantial tax cut, the Ma government pulled out its ace in the hole. The opposition Democratic Progressive Party has now lost its leverage. It has unwittingly played into the Ma administration's hand. Even more surprisingly, President Ma announced that wages for foreign laborers could probably be delinked from minimum wages within certain economic and trade zones. In one fell swoop, he removed two major obstacles standing in the way of an economic and trade zone. The public now realizes that tax cuts were actually chess moves intended to promote an economic and trade zone. The Industrial Innovation Act was merely an appetizer.

Was this chain of decisive moves merely a whim of the moment? Was it merely a lucky shot in the dark? Was it part of a well thought out plan? Was it merely an opportunistic move? Is the "Asian Pacific Platform" and "special economic zone" long anticipated by the public finally beginning to emerge? We will have to wait and see. If the Ma administration follows through, if all this turns out to be real, Taiwan will be far better prepared to face the challenges of the future.

亞太平台起死回生了嗎?
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.21 02:10 am

數月以來,馬總統坐困八八風災、美牛風波等一連串風暴堆砌的愁城之中,招致懦弱無能、治國無方的罵名,何其不堪。隨後又見調漲健保費,院長、署長互摃、爭訟不休,楊署長憤而以辭職相脅,馬政府竟似無頭蒼蠅,惶惶不知所措。

其實,早在內閣改組之際,諸多重大國政已瀕擱淺的情勢已現。新任經濟部長首次對外放話,竟是宣布研議已數月的「經貿特區」規劃,由於財政部堅決反對降低營所稅,而勞委會又悍然拒絕讓外勞薪資與基本工資脫鉤,兩個最起碼的必要條件無法具備,而使主事的經濟部長孤臣無力可回天,黯然宣告放棄。

然而「經貿特區」卻是一個遠比防治風災、管制美牛、改善健保財務重要百倍的政策;因為藉此可一舉突破台灣經濟困境,消除國人對自由開放的種種疑慮,讓經濟成長獲得動能,更可令台灣的地理優勢充分展露,在兩岸之間的戰略地位大幅提升。這個本該由國家領導人擘劃、推動的重責大任,卻落在區區一個部長肩頭,要求他凌駕兩個同等級的部會首長之上,裁決是否可行,豈能成事?人人都不能不問:在上的領導者所司何事?到哪去了?

就在健保費如何調漲相持不下之際,馬總統忽然做出裁示:調漲模式依楊署長,使楊署長打消辭意,全國聲援楊署長的民氣得到安撫;但於調漲同時,對高所得以外的投保人一律給予補助,令七成保費不漲,因而吳院長的主張也得以保全。雖屬折衷妥協,卻可見到其中的精心安排,使爭議雙方均維持了立場。在治標之外,馬總統同時承諾積極推動二代健保,讓這個或許可以消除一代健保嚴重積弊,但在立法院被視為票房毒藥而冷凍多年的法制可以起死回生,甚至可望在本會期之內即能完成立法程序。此種大開大闔的手法,正是馬總統就任後罕見的形象。

健保之爭初息,產創條例風波又起。本來去年即應完成立法的產創條例,其目的在於接續半世紀前開始實施的獎勵投資條例以及一脈相承的促進產業升級條例,繼續為台灣廠商提供一個減稅、補貼的方便之門。只是半世紀來,時空背景早已丕變,政府財政日窘,方便之門則飽受撻伐,而馬政府又變不出什麼新花樣,結果端出一個時髦的大帽子「產業創新」,編出一套舊瓶裝舊酒的條例。

然而,在野黨面對此一頗具爭議性的條例,竟也不能提出有效的對案取而代之,只知一味杯葛抵制,弄成一個不上不下的僵局,硬是拖到促產條例已落日逾百日,尚無法善後。在無謂的僵持中,執政黨立委受財團之囑,悄悄加進一個特許財團設立營運總部得享十五%超低營所稅的條款,意外引爆輿論的強烈抨擊,順勢引出一個可將營所稅率降至十七‧ 五%的方案。民進黨見獵心喜,欣然將之納為產創條例的對案,爭取民意認同,立顯棋高一著,大挫執政黨版聲勢。

民進黨的這一手,原本是料定國民黨一定不敢跟;卻完全料不到馬總統竟然順水推舟,迅速決定將黨版大幅修正,進而將稅率降至十七

%。事後的跡象可以看出,大幅降低營所稅原本即是馬政府的腹案,但一直不敢提出;倘若提出,民進黨一定全力反對。如今卻是民進黨主張大幅降稅,馬政府自然借力使力,掀開了底牌。事態至此,民進黨已失反對的槓桿,反而成就了馬政府的心願。更令人震撼的是,馬總統同步宣布,在一定經貿特區內,外勞基本薪資考慮可與基本工資脫鉤,一舉將阻礙經貿特區的兩座大山同時移開。此時國人似乎才發現,降稅行動實為推動經貿特區的一步棋,產創條例則儼然只是一道前菜而已。

這一連串明快的決策,究竟只是一時心血來潮、誤打誤撞的偶然?還是一個胸有成竹的方案,只是趁勢推出?國人憧憬已久的「亞太平台」「經貿特區」是否於焉誕生,尚待對馬政府的後續配套政策作進一步的觀察。倘若因此而可望逐步實現,應是台灣迎對未來嚴峻挑戰的重要憑藉。

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Deceive, Subsidize, Capture, Kill; Pretend, Take, Escape, Survive; Win/Win, Coexist

Deceive, Subsidize, Capture, Kill; Pretend, Take, Escape, Survive; Win/Win, Coexist
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 20, 2010

Both advocates and opponents of ECFA on Taiwan are wary of falling into a "deceive, subsidize, capture, kill" trap set by Beijing. Those who oppose ECFA are worried. But even those who favor ECFA have knots in their stomach.

As we noted previously, each side has its own "visible agenda" in today's cross-Strait wrestling match. Beijing's visible agenda is "deceive, subsidize, capture, and kill" the Republic of China government in Taipei. It is to use the vague language of the 1992 Consensus to deceive Taipei, to open direct links allowing Mainland tourists to visit Taiwan, to make large procurements subsidizing Taipei, to nurture a habit of dependency on the Mainland to capture Taipei, and finally, to kill the Republic of China government in Taipei. Taipei's "visible agenda" is "pretend, take, escape, survive": It is to use the "1992 Consensus" and other vague language to pretend to solve problems, without really getting to the bottom of the matter, to obtain nourishment from the Mainland, to use the nourishment to establish the primacy of the Republic of China, to escape from Beijing's trap, and to seek a symbiotic Win/Win relationship.

These agendas are not "hidden agendas." They are "visible agendas." Some people on Taiwan oppose ECFA. They are afraid of falling into Beijing's "deceive, subsidize, capture, kill" trap. Other people on Taiwan favor ECFA. They hope that Taiwan can "pretend, take, escape, survive."

In March, Mainland China experienced a 7.2 billion trade deficit, its first in six years. Its deficit with Taiwan was 7.9 billion. In other words, its deficit with Taiwan remains larger than its total deficit. The two sides are signing ECFA. Beijing's "share the wealth" policy panders to Taiwan's interests. As we can see, Beijing's policy of "deceive, subsidize" and Taipei's policy of "pretend, take" have reached a high point. This is why ECFA is currently raising alarms.

One of our recent editorials pointed out that the Republic of China has two issues for which there are no substitutes. First, there is no substitute for the geopolitical and cultural relationship between Taiwan and the Mainland. Secondly, there are no substitutes for the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. Therefore economic and trade activities under the Republic of China's system of freedom and democracy make it Impossible to ignore the Chinese Mainland, the world's factory and the world's market place. That is why the two sides' unique economic and trade relationship cannot be discontinued. The only difference is that for over a decade, Taipei was mired in the myth of "China's Coming Collapse." Had Taipei taken full advantage of its situation back then, it would be in a far better bargaining position today. It would have far less need to "pretend and take" in response to Beijing's "deceive and subsidize." The economic side of "pretend and take" and "deceive and subsidize" are understandable. What is worrisome is the political side. Can Beijing "capture and kill" Taipei? Can Taipei "escape and survive?"

Actually, ECFA may well be the magic talisman that breaks the spell of "deceive, subsidize, capture, kill" and "pretend, take, escape, survive." On the one hand, ECFA would make de jure Taiwan independence even more impossible. On the other hand, ECFA would dramatically reduce the urgency and necessity of de jure reunification. As noted in this paper's "Six New Year's Day Editorials," ECFA can facilitate the process of cross-Strait interactions, while easing any tensions generated by conflicting cross-Straits goals.

When discussing cross-Strait interactions, one will encounter the "first economics, then politics" thesis. But cross-Strait interactions have never been either purely economic, or purely political. They have always been both. ECFA has economic content, but it also has far reaching political repercussions. ECFA will have an enormous impact on cross-Strait interactions. The greatest of which is that the Mainland's economy will "capture" Taipei, while the Republic of China's democracy will "capture " Beijing. Beijing will use ECFA to shower Taipei with benefits, mainly in response to the Republic of China's democracy and public sentiment on Taiwan. Therefore behind the economic actions are political motivations. If ECFA can facilitate cross-Strait interactions, then economics can soften politics, and peace can replace military force. Violent and coercive goal orientation can be diminished, and replaced by a kinder, gentler process orientation, allowing the two sides to establish better goals. The basis of future interaction will be economics, peace, and democracy, enabling both sides to win and prosper.

ECFA will soon be signed. Beijing should forsake its agenda of "deceive, subsidize, capture, and kill." Because no matter what goals the two sides move toward in the future, Beijing cannot afford to "kill" the Republic of China's freedom and democracy. Beijing cannot afford to be accused of killing the Republic of China government in Taipei. If it were killed, Beijing would find it difficult to revive and govern the Taiwan region. This is why Beijing has adopted its "economics, peace, and democracy" policy toward Taipei. This is why we urge Beijing not to try to lure us into a trap, but instead invite us to a dance.

ECFA is still being drafted. We recommend that One China, Different Interpretations be added to its table of contents.

騙養套殺 裝吃閃活 雙贏共生
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.20 02:24 am

在台灣,不論是否贊成簽定ECFA(兩岸經協)者,心中皆有可能陷入中國「騙/養/套/殺」陷阱的疑慮。反對簽ECFA者固有此想,贊成者的心裡其實也不免有一粒大疙瘩。

我們曾經指出,兩岸今日角力,各有一套「陽謀」。北京方面的陽謀是「騙/養/套/殺」:用「九二共識」之類的籠統語言「騙」住台灣,再以開放三通、陸客來台、大筆採購等「養」台灣,在建立傾斜的依賴關係後「套」住台灣,最後則生殺由之。台灣方面的陽謀則是「裝/吃/閃/活」:對「九二共識」等籠統語言「裝」作解決了問題而不深究,然後設法「吃」大陸供應的養分,再用養分來建立台灣的主體地位以「閃」避北京的套結,進而謀求兩岸雙贏共生的「活」路。

以上這些,在兩岸皆不是「陰謀」,而是「陽謀」。如今,台灣一部分民意之所以反對簽ECFA,就是恐懼會墜入「騙養套殺」的陷阱;而另一部分民意之所以支持簽ECFA,就是寄望台灣能「裝吃閃活」。

中國大陸在三月出現六年來首見的外貿逆差,達七十二億,其中對台灣逆差是七十九億;亦即,對台逆差尚大於總逆差。此刻,兩岸正在洽簽ECFA,北京的「讓利」政策,亦使利益向台灣傾斜;由此可見,北京的「騙/養」,與台灣的「裝/吃」皆已進入高峰階段。這正是ECFA引發疑慮之處。

日前社論指出,台灣有兩項基本因素不具「替代性」。一、台灣與中國大陸的地緣及人文關係不具替代性;二、台灣的自由民主不具替代性。因而,台灣在自由民主體制下的經貿活動,絕無可能與作為世界工廠與世界市場的中國大陸切割,所以雙方的「經貿養分交流」關係也殊無可能禁絕。只是,台灣若在十幾年前未陷於「中國崩潰論」的幻想,而能及時操持優勢及主動地位的話,今日「騙/養」及「裝

/吃」的情勢,理應不至於像現今傾斜得如此嚴重。準此以論,「騙/養」及「裝/吃」的經濟面皆屬可以理解,其顧慮則是在政治面。亦即:北京會不會「套/殺」?台灣能不能「閃/活」?

其實,ECFA或許正是破解「騙養套殺/裝吃閃活」魔咒的法器。主要的理由是:ECFA一方面將使「法理台獨」變成更不可能,且ECFA同時亦使「法理統一」急遽降低了急迫性與必要性。若以本報《元旦六論》系列社論的語言來說,ECFA可使「過程論」更形穩健,亦使尖銳的「目的論」趨於緩和。

兩岸互動,有所謂「先經後政」之說;但經濟與政治在兩岸互動中,從來未曾涇渭分明,而是始終交雜纏繞。ECFA有其經濟內涵,但亦有極大的政治效應。我們認為,ECFA對兩岸互動最大的影響將是:大陸用經濟「套」住台灣,台灣則用民主「套」住大陸。北京藉ECFA對台大幅讓利,主要是在回應台灣的民主與民意;因而,與其說是經濟面的動作,不如說是政治面的思維。也就是說,ECFA倘若能確立兩岸互動「以經濟柔化政治/以和平取代武力」的基本準則,即應當可以降低暴力性與強制性的「目的論」之抬頭,而能較平穩地走在「過程論」之中,並共同趨向「改善之目的」。如此,在未來以「經濟/和平/民主」為準則的長期互動過程中,應當有「雙贏共生」的成就可期。

在ECFA即將簽訂之際,北京應忘掉「騙養套殺」。因為,不論兩岸未來將走向何種「目的」,北京皆不能「殺」死台灣的自由與民主;「中國」不能承受「殺」死台灣的罪名,被「殺」死的台灣也很難在「中國」復活,亦非「中國」所能治理。這正是北京如今改採「經濟/和平/民主」對台政策的原因,也就是我們曾經說的:不要請君入甕,而要與卿共舞。

準此,我們建議,在ECFA不成文的早收清單之上,再加列一個項目:一中各表。

Monday, April 19, 2010

Ma Administration: Ratings Fall, But Still on Probation

Ma Administration: Ratings Fall, But Still on Probation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2010

During a recent interview with Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao, KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung spoke frankly about President Ma Ying-jeou's approval ratings. He said that compared to political leaders in the United States and Japan, Ma's ratings have fallen more precipitously. But in response to the substantial 18 percent decline in the latest poll, King Pu-tsung said "This is a positive sign." The KMT's internal polls may offer some comfort to the Ma administration. But the accompanying decline in approval ratings suggests that public approval of President Ma's job performance has not increased, and is frozen at its current level. In other words, the public has put Ma on probation, and is adopting a "wait and see" attitude. Neither Ma nor the KMT should be too pleased with themselves.

Why has President Ma Ying-jeou's halo been so badly tarnished in two short years? This is a conundrum that has bedeviled the Blue Camp. Since the Ma administration took office two years ago, the Blue Camp been defeated in several legislative by-elections, and in last year's three in one county and municipal elections. These defeats reflect the decline in President Ma's popularity. Ever since the Ma administration took office, such challenges as the global financial tsunami and Typhoon Morakot have brought the Ma administration's ability to govern into serious question. Premier Wu's political finesse has allowed the ruling administration's approval ratings to recover somewhat. But President Ma's own approval ratings have not followed suit.

President Ma may not be willing to admit it. But apart from its determination to sign the cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), the Ma administration is a governing body without guiding principles. During the Ma administration's first term it set up a Tax Reform Commission. It invited a wide range of scholars and experts to participate. But frictions arose and it was dissolved, because the government lacked a comprehensive understanding of the tax system. Its economics and finance oriented officials lacked an overview of the nation's finances, including inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, and most recently, business taxes. Yet they cavalierly changed their tax rate recommendations in response to pressure from higher ups, against their profession judgment.

The Industrial Innovation Act changed the government's long held 20% bottom line on business taxes, almost overnight. It incorporated a tax rate even lower than the DPP's. The KMT was amenable to political appeals. It was even more eager than the DPP to cut taxes. Besides attracting votes, its tax cuts had no professional justification. The Industrial Innnovation Act is an evolution of the old Investment Awards Act and the Production Promotion Act. These two acts should have been sunsetted upon expiration. After years of development, industries that received special privileges or incentives have all become both powerful and profitable. Their tax umbrellas should have been closed up long ago. Who knew these umbrellas would be opened even wider, until they covered traditional and small and medium industries? Who knew that business taxes would be also cut, to the point where the Industrial Innovation Act has lost all meaning?

The Ma administration's lack of guiding principles is not limited to the Industry Innovation Act. Last year the Legislative Yuan reviewed the Local Government Act. The Ma administration yielded to the Taipei County Government in order to pander to voters in Tainan and Kaohsiung. With a single stroke of the pen, it increased the number of directly administered metropolises the government had planned from three to five. This has planted the seeds for even more uneven development on Taiwan. Agencies in the executive branch never planned for five directly administered metropolises. They have never completed either land plans nor administrative plans. Agencies responsible for financial matters have never completed the requisite revenue and expenditure plans. The ruling administration failed even to settle on suitable candidates for the five metropolises. It has without a doubt shot itself in the foot.

No one seems to care about the problems created by the establishment of these five directly administered metropolises. Both ruling and opposition party politicians are concerned only about who will be nominated and how they can win. Is the creation of these five directly administered metropolises compatible with the overall development of the nation? That is not their concern. They already occupy positions of power. They hope to become the heads of these five metropolises, or even higher offices. The larger interests of the nation are not their concern. Their sole concern is their own election campaigns. It is clear to see that no matter how many changes in ruling parties Taiwan undergoes, it is unlikely to lead to a healthy democracy, and even less likely to produce political appointees with vision.

Before Ma Ying-jeou became the leader of the nation, no one thought he lacked vision or convictions. But less than two years later, the government's weaknesses have been exposed. This includes conflicts between the cabinet and the ruling party legislative caucus, leading to government paralysis in times of crisis. The cabinet has been reshuffled. But major policies still fall victim to cavalier deal making within the legislature. Expert staffers are completely sidelined. The Liu cabinet was too elitist. The Wu cabinet is too unprofessional. The Ma administration has yet to find a balance between the public and its specialists, making it difficult for the public to give President Ma or his cabinet an accurate evaluation.

At about the same time King Pu-tsung was being interviewed, yet another Commonwealth Poll showed President Ma's approval rating stuck at 30% or so, and his disapproval rating rising to 66%. The KMT can interpret this data however it wants. But as long as one's approval rating have not rebounded, and one's disapproval ratings have not diminished, voter support will not be forthcoming. The Ma administration, including the party and the government, fully understands the public's perception. They know the public believes that "President Ma is a good man." But merely being a good man does not make one a leader the public can trust.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.19
社論-不滿意度雖降 馬政府仍「留校查看」
本報訊

國民黨秘書長金溥聰最近接受新加坡《聯合早報》訪問,直言馬英九總統的民意支持度,相較於美日等政治領導人,下滑是凶了一點,但不滿意度在最新的民調則大幅下滑十八個百分點,金溥聰認為,「這是一個正面跡象。」這份國民黨內部民調,或許可讓馬政府稍感安慰。但相應於不滿意度的下滑,馬總統的滿意度並未相應提昇,甚至原地踏步。換言之,民眾對馬總統的表現,其實還在「留校查看」的階段,沒有讓國民黨或馬政府沾沾自喜的理由。

馬英九總統個人聲望,為什麼會在兩年不到、這麼短的時間內破功?是藍營百思不得其解的大問題,從馬政府就任以來幾次立委補選,以及去年底三合一基層選舉失利,只是馬總統聲望下滑的反應。馬政府上台,全球金融海嘯、莫拉克風災等接續而來的挑戰,讓馬政府的執行效能遭到民意嚴重質疑,吳揆接手行政院之後,有一段時間,因為吳揆個人的政治手腕,讓政府形象回穩,但馬總統個人的民調滿意度,並未因此提昇。

不論馬總統願不願意承認,除了兩岸經濟合作架構協議(ECFA)非簽不可,馬政府是一個缺乏政策中心思想的團隊。馬政府就職第一任即成立賦改會,廣邀學者專家,最後弄到不歡而散,就是因為政府對「稅制」沒有整體觀念,從遺產稅、證交稅到最近的營所稅,財經首長腦中無國家財政之全貌,卻隨時隨地可因應「長官」之非專業見解,欣然調整降低之。

產創條例從政府堅守百分之廿的營所稅底線,到一夕改變,提出並通過比民進黨版本更低的稅率版本,除了政治上可以訴求,國民黨降稅比民進黨更爽快,並以此拉攏選票之外,沒有任何專業規畫的依據。產創條例沿革於早年的獎投條例與促產條例,照常理,這兩個特殊立法既落日就該回歸常態,因為所有當年因特許或特殊獎勵而存在的產業,經過這些年的發展,都已經成為大賺其錢的強勢產業,稅的保護傘早該收了,沒想到,這把傘愈張愈大,全面擴大到傳產與中小企業,並相應將修正營所稅法,那麼所謂的獎勵產業創新的特別法還有意義嗎?

馬政府缺乏政策中心思想的問題,不僅產創條例一端。早在去年立法院審議地方制度法,馬政府為了屈從台北縣、討好南高選民,一舉將政府規畫的三都,直接擴大為五都,就已經埋下台灣距離均衡發展愈來愈遠的惡果。做為執政黨,行政部門事前從未有五都之國土與行政規畫,財主單位亦無相應之財政收支劃分,甚至腦袋裡連適合的首長人選都無,就貿然點頭拍板五都,無異是搬石頭砸自己的腳。

而所有與五都相關的問題,迄今無人聞問。不論在朝、在野的政治人物,只想到誰參選、如何勝選,至於五都整體發展,或者五都如何配合國家發展,全然不在政治人物思考範圍之中。已居高位者、乃至志在逐鹿五都或更高位的政治人物,心中全無國家發展之願景,念茲在茲只有選戰的攻擊與防禦,可以想見,台灣不論歷經多少次政黨輪替,都不可能產生健全民主文化,更不可能培養出有遠見的政務官。

馬英九就任國家領導人之前,沒有人認為他是沒有遠見、或者欠缺政策中心思想的政治人物,這兩年不到的時間,政府作為表現所曝露的弱點,包括政府團隊與國會黨團時有衝突,使政府陷入失能空轉的危機;政府團隊調整之後,重大政策又輕易妥協於國會喊價,使專業技術官僚完全喪失幕僚功能。從劉內閣太菁英到吳內閣太不專業,馬政府始終無法在庶民與專家間找到平衡,就很難讓民意給予馬總統或政府團隊一個適切的評價。

在金溥聰受訪幾乎同時間,另一份由天下遠見所公布的民調,馬總統的滿意度依舊低到三成左右,而不滿意度還是高達六成六,不論國民黨如何詮釋這些數據,最重要的,只要滿意度不能明確回升,不滿意度降低是不可能帶來支持度的,馬團隊從黨到政,都得更精確地理解民心向背:「馬總統是一個好人」,但「好人」顯然還不足以成為民意認可的國家領導人。

Friday, April 16, 2010

The Nation's Finances Need Internal Checks

The Nation's Finances Need Internal Checks
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 16, 2010

After months of stalemate in the legislature, the "Industrial Innovation Act" has suddenly experienced a reversal of fortune. The KMT is using its legislative majority to decide how the bill should be modified for passage. The question however, is whether the ruling party's policy coordination can be reconciled with President Ma's policy making.

Regrettably the current policy about face reveals serious oversights in the Ma administration's financial policy analysis, involving President Ma, the Presidential Office, the Executive Yuan, and his advisors. We hope to explain the basics of financial decision making in a series of editorials. These editorials would amount to a commentary on the decision-making process and policy direction of the president and his financial advisers. The most controversial aspect of the Industrial Innovation Act concerns taxation. Therefore we will begin by addressing the issue of taxation, and gradually broaden our critique from there.

The version of the bill originally sent to the Legislative Yuan was the result of discussions between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. It was even approved by the Tax Reform Commission and the Executive Yuan. It was subjected to thorough discussion and study because the impact of financial policy decisions can be extremely complex and require professional analysis. They are often matters the man in the street cannot understand. Businessmen and the public alike naturally want lower taxes. Therefore when financial decisions come face to face with populist sentiment or elected officials, the result is invariably tax cuts all the way. Industrial and business tycoons are usually more adept than salaried workers at lobbying the executive and the legislature. Professionals are forced to step back, and no one is left to defend the larger interests of the nation. Populist fiscal policy or legislation may not always pander to Big Business, but it is often unconducive to the overall health of the economy.

Our emphasis on the importance of the nation's finances is nothing new. It applies to the large scale revenues and expenditures of all economic entities. Let us take a law everyone is familiar with to illustrate the importance of fiscal and financial policy. Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act states that listed companies must establish an independent board of directors, or "Audit Committee." Its most important task is to elect the company's Chief Financial Officer and and Chief Auditor. If we compare the government to a corporation, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Auditor are the equivalent of the Minister of Finance, the Comptroller, and the Auditor General. According to Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act, a listed company's financial and auditing directors must be independent. They must not be appointed by the General Manager. They must not even be subject to the control of the Chairman of the Board. Most listed companies insist on this level of independence and professionalism for their financial managers. Can a nation's government demand less? Therefore a nation's financial and accounting heads must be professional and resolute. They must not even be subject to the control of the premier (General Manager) and president (Chairman of the Board). The premier and the president should respect the authority of financial and accounting heads.

The law does not set professional standards for most corporate financial officers, only for large listed companies, mainly because the bigger the company, the more serious the consequences of any financial irregularities. A company need not worry about financial problems as long as everything is proceeding smoothly. But when a company is expanding its operations or is facing troubled times, financial management and control becomes particularly important. Our current financial heads are clearly more concerned about being obedient than they are about being professional. As a result they are silent about the Industrial Innovation Act, and expose the lack of financial checks and balances in our government.

The government faces two challenges. One. The Ma administration has pledged to promote its "Twelve Love for Taiwan Construction Projects." These require a budget of four-trillion over eight years. The amount is staggering. Two. Global climate change is exerting pressure on the government. Every summer and fall Taiwan is subject to natural disasters. These often require the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. It is easy to imagine the government's financial burden under these twin pressures. Those in authority must be vigilant. How can they overlook such problems? Two years ago, in July, when the Tax Reform Commission was established, the Ma administration had an excellent opportunity to complete a sound, long term, macro level financial plan in tune with his national infrastructure plans. Unfortunately, the Tax Reform Commission defaulted, and instead promoted hasty, piecemeal, emergency policies and bills. It left the government's financial structure confused, and experts and scholars devastated.

All through 2009, the Ma administration promoted haphazard tax cuts. Even now, the Ma administration seems unaware of the seriousness of the fiscal deficit. Its response to the Industrial Innovation Act is to "Stabilize the situation by shouting 17%." Its tendency to pander to populist sentiment is deeply worrying. The government's financial status has gone from bad to worse. It has been repeatedly downgraded by international credit rating agencies, and blasted by both the Blue and Green media. The root of the problem is national leaders seriously deficient in their understanding of financial and fiscal affairs. The Ma administration desperately needs to mend the holes in its financial policy making process.

國家財政需有內建的把關機制
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.16 02:13 am

「產創條例」立法爭議僵持數月之後,該案近日有出人意表的一百八十度轉向。以國民黨在國會的優勢,要將產創條例如何修理應都會在立法院通過;問題在於,執政黨黨內的協調與馬總統決策形成的過程,是否禁得起檢驗。

令人遺憾的是,由此次產創條例政策大轉彎,凸顯出馬總統及其府院幕僚在財經政策研析的嚴重疏漏。我們想藉這一系列社論,說明財經決策的幾點基本理則,其實也是對總統本人及其周邊財經幕僚陣容、決策機制、政策方向的整體評論。產創條例的爭議焦點之一是「稅」,因此我們先從「稅」這個特定領域,逐漸延伸做更廣泛的批評。

產創條例原本送到立法院的版本,是經過經濟部與財政部討論、也經過賦稅改革委員專案計畫核算、更經過行政院院會通過的版本。之所以要經過這麼縝密的討論與核算,就是因為財經事務的衝擊極為複雜,又涉及相當專業的考量,往往不是一般「庶民」所能理解。企業與人民當然希望降稅多多益善,因此財經事務訴諸民粹或民意代表,結論必然是降稅一途。一般而言,由於工商業大老闆較薪水階級長於行政與立法遊說,故在專業退位、國家整體利益缺乏捍衛的情況下,民粹式的財經政策或立法不但會向資本家傾斜,也往往不利於經濟的整體發展。

我們在此特別強調「國家」財政的重要性,其實並非新論,而是所有涉及大金額財務收支經濟團體的共同特徵。茲以一個眾所熟悉的法律內容,來說明財政與財務的重要性。證交法第十四條規定,上市公司一定要由若干獨立董事設置「審計委員會」,而該會之最重要任務,就是選任公司之財務長與總稽核。若將國家比喻為公司,則財務長與總稽核就像是國家的財政部長、主計長與審計長。依據證交法十四條規範之意旨,上市公司的財務與稽核等專業主管,應該要相當獨立,不但不是公司總經理所任命,甚至也不受公司董事長所節制。一般上市公司對於財務人員的獨立性與專業性如此堅持,國家又焉能背道而馳?準此,國家的財政主計首長,尤其需要專業夠強、理念清晰,甚至要不太受行政院長(總經理)與總統(董事長)之節制,而行政院長與總統則應充分尊重財政主計首長的權限。

法律不對一般企業的財稽人員專業性有所規範,卻只對上市的大公司規範,主要就是因為公司越大、財務出問題的後果就越嚴重。不只如此,公司若在平順時期,不需太過憂心財務問題,但若是公司在擴張業務期間、或面臨多事之秋,則財務管控的重要性就格外凸顯。以台灣的情況來看,我們現任的財政主計首長,顯然是服從性大於專業性。正因為如此,他們對於產創條例的噤聲,就反映出台灣財政把關的輕忽了。

當前的台灣面臨了兩方面的挑戰:其一是馬政府信誓旦旦要推愛台十二建設,需要八年四兆的預算,金額十分驚人。其二是在全球氣候變遷的壓力下,台灣每年夏秋都可能遭逢天災侵襲,動輒需要數千億預算的支援。在這雙重預算壓力之下,國家財政負擔之重可想而知,主事者自應戰戰兢兢,焉能輕忽怠慢?馬政府原本有大好的機會,以前年七月成立的賦稅改革委員會做完整的、宏觀的、長期的規劃,以穩健的財務步伐,配合國家建設的推動。可惜的是,賦改會捨此不圖,卻以倉促的、零碎的、救急的政策與法案,將台灣的財政結構弄得滿目瘡痍,令專家學者心情沉重。

經過二○○九年一整年的胡亂降稅,馬政府至今似乎還沒有意識到財政赤字的嚴重性,對產創條例修正仍然一副「十七%喊價定局面」的民粹媚俗態勢,這是非常令國人憂慮的現象。台灣財政之所以每下愈況、被國際信評屢次降等、被藍綠媒體重批,追根究柢,就是國家領導人嚴重欠缺財務與財政的基本觀念。這是馬政府在財經決策上亟需補強的第一個闕漏。

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The Republic of China: No Realistic Alternatives

The Republic of China: No Realistic Alternatives
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 15, 2010

Is there an alternative to the Cross-Strait Economic Agreement (ECFA)? Before we attempt to answer this question, we must first answer another question. Is there an alternative to the Republic of China?

The DPP says signing ECFA is evidence of "Ma Tong" (the Green Camp's coarse epithet for President Ma) "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Clearly the DPP is treating the ECFA controversy as a struggle over national identity and the meaning of the constitution. Therefore it is impossible to understand the ins and outs of ECFA without first understanding the controversy over national identity and the meaning of the constitution.

The Ma administration's thinking behind ECFA begins with the Republic of China. The Republic of China has a One China Constitution. This leads logically to One China, Different Interpretations, No [immediate] Reunification, No Independence, and No Military Conflict, Expansion of Cross-Strait Exchanges, Direct Links and Direct Flights, the Institutionalization of Economic and Trade Exchanges, and ECFA. Put simply, the institutionalization of cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges is the natural consequence of upholding the Republic of China's Constitution and its definition of national identity.

By contrast, those who advocate Taiwan independence and nation building, oppose the One China Constitution, One China, Different Interpretations, and No Reunification, No Independence, No Military Conflict. They will naturally oppose Direct Links and Direct Flights, obstruct the expansion of cross-Strait exchanges, and of course ECFA. After all, the closer cross-Strait exchanges become, the lower the likelihood of Taiwan independence and nation building. The Green Camp has long advocated Taiwan independence and nation building, as well as the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution. That is why it advocates "Avoid Haste, Be Patient," opposes Direct Links and Direct Flights, and of course ECFA. In other words, opposition to ECFA is the logical consequence of support for Taiwan independence. Alas, consistent logic is hardly the same as correct policy.

In the final analysis, the dispute between the Blue and Green political camps on Taiwan has always boiled down to a single question: Is there an alternative to the Republic of China?

One side advocates preserving the Republic of China. The other side advocates Taiwan independence and nation building, and replacing the Republic of China with a "Nation of Taiwan." Is there an alternative to ECFA? Actually, if one examines the controversy in this light, the real question is whether there is an alternative to the Republic of China.

Whether there is an alternative to the Republic of China depends on whether the proposed alternative works. Take food for example. Noodles are an alternative to rice because they work. Poison, on the other hand, is not an alternative to rice, because it does not work. This comparison is admittedly extreme. Perhaps halting construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant is a better example. Invoking a "nuclear-free homeland" to justify halting construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant could be considered idealistic. It is not categorically unworkable. It is workable, providing one is willing to spend more money, live with more pollution, and hamper economic development. But we face a dilemma. Economical non-nuclear power generation is not yet a reality. Complete reliance on conventional energy generation poses its own problems. If we cease using nuclear power, halting construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant in pursuit of a "nuclear-free homeland" may not be categorically unworkable. But one must first ask oneself whether society is able to bear the cost.

There are two basic reasons why a "Nation of Taiwan" cannot be considered a workable alternative to the Republic of China. One. The geopolitical and cultural relationship between Taiwan and Mainland China, and Mainland China's status as the world's factory and the world's marketplace. The United States, Japan, and Southeast Asia cannot replace Mainland China. Two. the free and democratic system on Taiwan. One cannot forcibly impose restrictions on cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, and on cultural and social exchanges. Under a free and democratic system, unless one is willing to impose martial law, money will walk. These two reasons make any other political and economic path far too difficult.

Globally, bilaterall, and internally, Taiwan independence may be an ideal of sorts, but one that is unworkable. You may not like the meal in front of you, but poison is never an alternative. There may be alternatives to ECFA. just as there are alternatives to nuclear power generation. If one is determined to reject nuclear power generation or ECFA, one can halt nuclear power plant construction. For example, one Green oriented think-tank suggests seeking a six to nine percent reduction in tariffs for exports to the Mainland. It suggests encouraging companies from Taiwan to first set up plants in Southeast Asia, then transfer them to Mainland China. But this is nothing new. Over the past two decades, the two sides have habitually used third locations as alternatives to direct flights. Such roundabout methods are "alternatives" of a sort. But at what cost? And to what end?

The Green Camp refuses to sign ECFA because it wishes to establish a "Taiwan independence homeland." But will refusing to sign ECFA really enable them to establish a "Taiwan independence homeland?" Where is the rationality in refusing to sign ECFA, and forcing Taiwan into economic marginalization, all for the sake of an unattainable "Taiwan independence homeland?"

The "Two Yings Debate" has provoked controversy because information has been neither transparent nor symmetrical. We feel that the most opaque aspect of the Blue vs. Green political struggle is the Democratic Progressive Party's definition of national identity and the nation's constitution. Is their definitino of national identity and the nation's constitution contained in their Taiwan Independence Party Platform? Is it contained in their Resolution on the Future of Taiwan? Is it contained in their Resolution for a Normal Nation? Or is it contained in their Platform for the Coming Decade? Each time the Green Camp holds a protest march, "Nation of Taiwan" flags and banners fill the air. If the Democratic Progressive Party refuses to tell us whether it advocates Taiwan independence and nation building, it no longer has any criteria by which it can debate ECFA.

Only when the DPP allows the public to see what it is offering as an "alternative to the Republic of China," can the public evaluate the DPP's "alternative to ECFA."

中華民國有沒有替代方案
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.04.15 01:27 am

ECFA(兩岸經濟協議)有沒有「替代方案」?在解答這個問題以前,似乎應當先回答另一個問題:中華民國有沒有「替代方案」?

民進黨說,簽訂ECFA是「馬統」在「傾中賣台」;可見根本是將ECFA的爭議,視為國家認同與憲政定位的鬥爭。因而,若不弄清國家認同與憲法定位的爭議,就無法弄清ECFA的是非得失。

馬政府主張簽訂ECFA的政策思維是:中華民國→一中憲法→一中各表→不統不獨不武 →兩岸擴大各種層面的交流→三通直航→經貿交流法制化→簽ECFA。簡單地說,就是在國家認同及憲法定位上主張維持中華民國,面對全球競爭及區域化經濟整合的現實,才有了為兩岸經貿交流簽定法制框架的決策。

相對而言,倘若是主張台獨建國,反對一中憲法,反對一中各表,反對「不統/不獨/不武」中的「不獨/不武」,那就非但必須反對三通直航,也應設法阻滯兩岸擴大各種層面的交流,更應反對簽ECFA。因為,兩岸交流愈緊密,台獨建國的可能性就愈低。由於綠營一直主張台獨建國、正名制憲,所以主張戒急用忍,反對三通直航,因而也就反對簽ECFA。也就是說,反對ECFA,是台獨政策邏輯上的必然結論。但邏輯正確,卻未必代表政策正確。

其實,追根究柢,台灣的藍綠黨爭一向只有一個題目:中華民國有無替代方案?

一方主張維持中華民國;另一方主張台獨建國,以台灣國為中華民國的替代方案。如今在表象上看似在爭論ECFA有無替代方案,其實在骨子裡爭議的卻是中華民國有無替代方案?

有無替代方案,要看有無可行性。例如食物,麵是米的替代方案,因為有可行性;但毒藥不是米的替代方案,因為沒有可行性。這樣的類比可能比較極端,核四停建也許是較佳事例。用「非核家園」作「停建核四」的替代方案,當然具有理想性,也不是完全沒有可行性(只要花更大成本,承受更大汙染,或放慢經濟發展即可);但在非核的主流能源尚未出現,而又不宜全賴傳統能源的兩難下,若以停用核能、停建核四來追求「非核家園」,不是完全不可行,而是要考慮社會能否承受其代價。

台灣有兩項基本因素是不具「替代性」的。一、台灣與中國大陸的地緣及人文關係不具替代性,因而中國大陸在世界工廠及世界市場的磁吸力亦不具替代性,美國、日本、東南亞皆不可能替代。二、台灣的自由民主制度不具替代性,因而要強行限制阻擾兩岸經貿、文化及社會交流也就絕無可能;在自由民主制度下,鈔票是會走路的,除非回過頭去實施戒嚴。由於這兩項絕對「不具替代性」的因素,台灣在整個國家政經路線上,也就不易採行太過逆勢操作的「替代方案」。

無論就世界、兩岸,及台灣內部的大局發展而論,台獨雖具理想性,但不具可行性;猶如毒藥不是食物的替代方案,縱使你不滿意眼前的膳食。不過,ECFA卻未必絕對沒有替代性,猶如核電廠,若是打定主意不用核能(不簽ECFA),也不是完全不可廢核電。比如說,綠色智囊建議,為爭取登陸減免六%至九%的關稅,可以鼓勵台灣廠商拔根赴東南亞投資設廠,然後再「轉進」中國大陸。這其實不是什麼新的「替代方案」。過去二十年,兩岸曾以「中轉第三地」作為「直航」的替代方案;這樣的周折,替代是可替代,但代價可怕,意義何在?

何況,倘若是為了建立「台獨家園」而反對簽ECFA;但不簽ECFA,就能實現「台獨家園」嗎?那麼,若是為了不可能實現的「台獨家園」,而反對簽 ECFA,使台灣面臨邊緣化的危機,這樣的決策理性何在?

雙英辯論正在為「資訊不透明」、「資訊不對稱」而生爭議。我們認為,在現今藍綠政爭中,最「不透明」的資訊,就是民進黨的國家認同與憲法定位;究竟應以台獨黨綱、國家前途決議文、正常國家決議文,或十年政綱為準?綠營的遊行隊伍裡仍見台灣國的旌旗招展,民進黨這一回若不說清楚是否主張台獨建國,則對 ECFA的辯論即失去判準。

因為,國人必須先看到民進黨所提出的「中華民國的替代方案」,才能評價ECFA的替代方案。

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Explain ECFA: Refrain From Name-Calling

Explain ECFA: Refrain From Name-Calling
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 14, 2010

The debate over ECFA will begin at the end of the month. There has been no shortage of politicians maneuvering for political advantage during the consultation process. But as the leaders of the two sides make their entrance, we expect to see a rational and business-like debate. We also hope the two sides will dispel public doubts by providing people with clear answers.

The reason the government feels such urgency regarding ECFA, is that beginning this year, ASEAN plus One (10 ASEAN countries plus Mainland China) will form an East Asian Free Trade Zone. Its population will number 1.9 billion. In one fell swoop, the average tariff will be reduced from 9.8% to 0.1%. Over 7000 products will be 100% tariff free. Two years later, ASEAN plus Three (Japan and South Korea will be added) and will also form a free trade zone.

Frankly, the impact of this change on Taiwan needs no elaboration. Tariffs on exports among the countries of these regions will approach zero. Tariffs on exports from Taiwan to other economies within these regions will be subject to tariffs of 5 to 10%. The competitiveness of products from Taiwan will decline. In the short term, domestic companies may be able to endure thinner margins. But in the medium to long term, they will not be able enhance their competitiveness by lowering their costs. All they can do is set up factories in these areas, in order to achieve tariff free status. Two years from now South Korea, our major trade competitor, will also become a member. The pressure on us will then be doubled. The affected products will range from petrochemicals and textiles to electronics and machinery.

The DPP must explain. If we do not sign ECFA, what measures does the DPP have have to prevent Taiwan's exclusion from the East Asian Free Trade Area, and to avoid diminished export competitiveness?

Some in the Green Camp say that simply signing FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) with other governments in the region will solve all our problems. Please refrain from parroting this nonsense. ASEAN plus One did not spring into existence last night. As early as 2001, a number of private and official entities began assessing and reporting its potential impact on Taiwan. The DPP was in power for eight years. Did the DPP "solve our problems" then? With which governments in the region did it sign FTAs?

Since the beginning of this year, exports from Taiwan to Hong Kong and ASEAN have increased. Some in the Green Camp have cited this as "proof" that ASEAN plus One has had no impact whatsoever on our exports. Such unprofessional, amateurish comments are better left unsaid. No nation or industry in the world, when it exports to any particular area, will regard the imposition of higher tariffs as "friendly and acceptable." The market will not change overnight. Manufacturers may be able to endure lower short-term profits. But they cannot endure them over the long term. Look at it from another angle. If Taiwan enterprises are well run, they will enjoy higher profits. But with unequal tariffs, businesses under other governments will be more competitive because of their tariff status. Companies on Taiwan can only respond with price cuts and lower profits. If the government has the means to achieve tariff equity but fails to do so, that amounts to a dereliction of duty.

Besides, export competition is not merely about comparisons against oneself. One must also compare oneself against others. Suppose the ASEAN import market grows. Suppose exports from Taiwan to ASEAN increase 10%, but other economies in the region increase their exports by 30%? Taiwan will be the big loser. Does the DPP really not understand this? Increased exports to the Mainland and Hong Kong are clearly related to Mainland procurement purchasing groups that came to Taiwan over the past year. To conclude from these short-term numbers that ASEAN plus One had no impact on exports from Taiwan, is sheer ignorance.

The Democratic Progressive Party opposes ECFA. It even opposes economic and trade exchanges with the Mainland. But the figures before us represent businessmen from Taiwan investing an estimated 200 billion US dollars in the Mainland. The Mainland and Hong Kong account for 44% of all exports from Taiwan. It is also the major source of our trade surplus. Therefore the DPP must make itself clear. What plans does it have for cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges? If the government signs ECFA this year, but the DPP returns to power in 2012, does it intends to abolish ECFA?

As a responsible ruling party, the KMT must not report only the good news and not the bad. Signing FTAs with other governments will of course have a positive impact on the overall economy and on industry. That is why nearly 200 governments have signed FTAs. After signing their export trade has indeed grown. But this is not the whole story. The overall numbers look good. But they have also created winners and losers. The ruling administration must make clear which industries are likely to be losers, and inform us what relief measures it intends to offer these losers.

This matter affects many businesses and many people's jobs. The government cannot merely announce that it is providing tens of billions in relief funds and be done with it. The relief funds must not be like a cake behind a pastry shop window. One can see it, but cannot taste it. The government must make clear what it intends to do. Only then will the public be reassured. More importantly, no one wants to live on charity. The government must offer a set of policies that will provide relief to those who find themselves unemployed as a consequence of ECFA.

The government has reiterated that only after ECFA is signed, will it be possible to sign FTAs with other governments. Based on the reactions of other large governments, it would seem that ECFA may indeed pave the way for FTAs. But as a responsible ruling party, it must make clear the extent to which ECFA will pave the way for FTAs. Can it go a step further and tell us just how long it will take before we can sign FTAs with other governments?

We hope the debate over ECFA between the ruling and opposition parties will fulfill its function as a policy debate. We hope the debate will be professional and free of name-calling. The public has many doubts. Please allay those doubts, by speaking clearly and plainly.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2010.04.14
社論-辯清楚ECFA 朝野都別亂扣帽子
本報訊

ECFA辯論月底上場,雖然整個協商過程,政客們永遠少不了的政治小動作不斷,但當雙方主帥上場之時,我們期望是看到一場理性、專業的辯論;更期望雙方能對社會大眾的疑義,清楚的給個答案。

政府推動ECFA,最急迫性的因素是今年起,東協加一(東協十國加上中國)的東亞自由貿易區上路,形成一個高達十九億人口的經濟體,平均關稅一口氣由九.八%降至○.一%,其中有高達七千多種商品零關稅。兩年後,東協加三(增加了日本與南韓)自由貿易區也跟著啟動。

坦白說,此一變革對台灣的影響,不辯可知。區內各國彼此出口接近零關稅,台灣出口到此區內還要課徵五到十%的關稅,產品競爭力必然下跌;短期而言,國內企業固然可能殺價流血輸出,但中長期而言,無法壓低成本、提升競爭力者,只能前往該區內設廠,以享受零關稅的待遇。特別是二年後,我國最主要貿易競爭對手國南韓加入後,壓力將倍增,且受影響的出口產品從傳統石化、紡織等擴及電子、機械。

民進黨要講清楚的是:如果不簽ECFA,有什麼對策可消除台灣被排除在東亞自由貿易區外導致出口競爭力下跌?

綠營有人說:與其它區內國家簽訂FTA(自由貿易協定),即可突破困境。這種無聊的話,就請不要再講了。東協加一不是突然發生,早在二 ○○一年就可看到民間與官方各種評估其對台灣影響的報告,執政八年,民進黨突破了嗎?與區內那個國家簽下FTA?

至於引用年初以來台灣對陸港與東協出口增加的數字,「證明」東協加一對台灣出口毫無影響,這種非專業到完全外行的話,更是甭說了。世界上沒有哪個國家、哪個產業,在出口到特定區域時,面對比其它國家高的稅率,還會視為「友善、可接受者」。短期而言,市場改變不會一朝一夕發生,廠商或許能短暫忍受較低的利潤,但不可能長期忍受。換個角度看,如果台灣企業原本經營能力較強,享受較高的利潤,但因關稅的不平等,競爭力因其它國家免關稅而以低價搶市,台灣企業只能回應降價,利潤降低。如果,政府有辦法爭取到平等的關稅卻不去做,才是失職。

更何況,出口競爭不是跟自己比而已,還要跟其它國家比。當東協進口市場成長時,如果台灣對東協出口增加一成,但其它區內國家增加三成,台灣就是大輸家。難道,民進黨不懂這個道理嗎?至於對大陸、香港出口增加,則明顯與過去一年多的大陸採購團來台採購有關。把短期的數字簡化為東協加一對台灣出口毫無影響,是無知了。

而民進黨反對ECFA,甚至對與大陸的經貿往來都持抗拒質疑的態度;但擺在眼前的數字是台商在大陸投資估計已達二千億美元,陸港占台灣出口的四成四,同時也是主要順差來源。那麼,民進黨也該說清楚,其對兩岸經貿往來的擘劃為何?如果政府真在今年簽下ECFA,萬一民進黨二○一二年重新執政,是否要廢止ECFA?

而對國民黨而言,做為一個負責任的執政者,不能報喜不報憂。與他國簽訂FTA,對整體經濟與產業當然有正面效益,所以各國已簽下近二百個FTA協定,簽訂後彼此的出口貿易也的確成長。但這不是故事的全部,在總體數字漂亮增長的同時,也產生了贏家與輸家。執政者該講清楚的是:哪些產業是可能的輸家?對那些輸家,政府又有何救濟扶助措施?

這事,關係著許多人的工作、企業存亡,政府不能以一句編列X百億元的救濟基金帶過,如果救濟基金只是看得到、吃不到,有何意義?政府應該對相關辦法有更明確的交代以安民心。更重要的是,沒有人願意拿救濟金過活,政府對因ECFA而失業的弱勢者,更該有一套輔導轉業的辦法。

此外,政府一再強調簽ECFA後,才有可能與其它國簽FTA,觀諸其它主要國家反應,似乎ECFA的確可能有此「帶頭效應」。但做為負責任的執政者,也請說清楚:到底帶動效應有多少?是否能進一步承諾多久時間能簽下多少FTA?

我們期望,朝野的ECFA辯論,不僅是形式上達成政策辯論的目的,在實質內容上,更能以專業、不亂扣帽子的的內涵,對外界的疑問,說清楚、講明白!