Thursday, March 31, 2011

No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy

No Need for New and Unconventional Cross-Strait Policy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 1, 2011

Either Tsai Ing-wen or Su Tseng-chang will represent the DPP in the 2012 presidential election. The two candidates made glowing promises during the party primaries. But neither adequately addressed cross-Strait policy. As a result, the two candidates' primary platforms were all flash and no substance.

The primary platforms issued by Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen were similar to those issued by presidential candidates all over the world. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's rhetoric about students studying under dim lanterns, and college girls afraid of losing their jobs could easily have been incorporated into the campaign speeches of any nation's presidential candidate, But such rhetoric is clearly inadequate for a candidate seeking the Republic of China presidency. Failure to address cross-Strait policy reduces the entire speech to empty boasting.

Tsai Ing-wen's primary platform barely mentioned cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang mentioned it merely in passing. He said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen spoke of "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." Su Tseng-chang's "Survival above all, democracy as a foundation" did not appear in his primary platform. Clearly the two candidates were deliberately avoiding, even hiding, from cross-Strait issues. This is the DPP's Achilles Heel. This is also Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen's political Achilles Heel.

Cross-Strait issues are admittedly not the sum total of the ROC's political and economic problems. But they are undoubtedly its most important component. For the ROC, cross-Strait policy must be addressed. Otherwise it is impossible to speak about a vision for the future. If no remedies can be found for cross-Strait ills, then no remedies will be found for our political and economic ills. The Ma administration has laid out its cross-Strait policy, including ECFA. The DPP on the other hand, has failed to offer any comprehensive or substantial proposals in its stead. It even averred that "If elected, it would continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." At the same time, it persists in hurling vague allegations about "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan." Tsai Ing-wen even made a fuss about the headstones and funerary urns of candidates' ancestors. On one side of her mouth, she condemned the incumbent for "pandering to [Mainland] China" and "selling out Taiwan." On the other side of her mouth she assured us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the previous administration." How can she possibly win on a platform like this? And if elected, how could she possibly govern the nation?

It is now over 20 years since martial law was lifted. The Democratic Progressive Party underwent a considerable period during which it experimented with all manner of "new and unconventional" cross-Strait policies. These include the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, the rectification of names, one nation on each side, the Second Republic, de-Sinicization, the referendum to join the UN, the resolution for a normal nation, and other Taiwan independence oriented proposals. These amounted to a history of the DPP's cross-Strait relations counterproposals. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen know perfectly well that these policies are utterly infeasible. But Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are running for elective office. On the one hand, they cannot admit their proposals are infeasible. Doing so would mean losing the support of Green Camp zealots. On the other hand, they cannot avoid the realization that their proposals are infeasible. Otherwise, why would they assure us that "If elected, we will continue the cross-Strait policy of the preceding administration?"

The DPP is trapped within a "now you see it, now you don't, now you see it again" paradox. Su Tseng-chang says "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." He says this because the DPP's new and unconventional proposals have all turned out to be infeasible. He says this because the DPP has run out of new and unconventional proposals to offer.

Almost every one of the Democratic Progressive Party's new and unconventional cross-Strait policy proposals were rooted in Taiwan independence thought. The fundamental premise of Taiwan independence thought has long been "Resistance against the PRC necessitates the overthrow of the ROC." This eventually degenerated into "Resistance against the ROC equals resistance against the PRC." But the domestic and international situation has changed. Gradually the public is seeing things more clearly. It realizes that if it overthrows the ROC, it will be even more difficult to resist the PRC. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are well aware of this fact. That is why they realize there is no room for "new and unconventional" proposals.

Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional. We have long felt this way. We need only return to the constitutional framework of the Republic of China. Future cross-Strait relations will be determined in accordance with the ROC Constitution. The constitutional process must be a democratic process. This naturally implies that "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people." If we can reach such a consenus, we can return to the constitution. We need not concoct anything new and unconventional.

Su Tseng-chang said "Cross-Strait policy need not be new and unconventional." Tsai Ing-wen meanwhile, avoided the question altogether, This shows that the Democratic Progressive Party has reached the end of its rope. It has nothing new or unconventional to offer. Hsu Hsing-liang has entered the party primaries, Compared to Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, he comes across as "new and unconventional." But in fact Hsu is merely returning to the mainstream. Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen are unable to offer anything "new and unconventional" in cross-Strait policy, Yet they want to run for ROC president. As Annette Lu asked of the DPP: Are you ready? Can you be counted on? Do you have the ability?

談兩岸,不必標新立異
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.04.01 03:46 am

蔡英文與蘇貞昌二人之一可望代表民進黨競選二○一二總統。二人的初選宣言均極盡詞藻華麗之能事,卻因皆未對兩岸議題作出應有的申論,遂使二篇初選宣言皆顯得華而不實。

蘇蔡兩篇初選宣言,大部分內容其實與舉世各國所有總統候選人的競選宣言大同小異;換一個國家的總統候選人,也可以拿著蘇蔡這兩篇講稿,從昏燈下的學童或害怕失業的大學女生講起。但是,這顯然不夠格作為中華民國總統參選人的競選宣言,不談兩岸政策,可使通篇演說變成假、大、空話。

蔡英文的初選宣言對兩岸政策幾乎未置一詞,蘇貞昌則點到為止,甚至稱「談兩岸不必標新立異」。蔡英文的「和而不同,和而求同」,與蘇貞昌的「生存是王道,民主是基礎」也均未見諸初選宣言;顯見二人對兩岸議題皆蓄意迴避,甚至在藏拙。這正是民進黨的阿基里斯腱,亦即是蘇蔡二人的政治罩門。

兩岸問題誠然不是台灣政經問題的全部,卻無疑是最重要的部分。對台灣而言,沒有平衡的兩岸政策,即不可能有未來憧憬可言;若不能在兩岸問題上找到應對方法,則整個政經問題就無從治理。然而,民進黨如今對馬政府的兩岸政策,如ECFA等,其實完全提不出對其全盤否定或作重大修正的建議,甚至還有「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」的說法;但是,另一方面民進黨卻又不斷操弄「傾中賣台」的情緒性空泛指摘,蔡英文甚至拿先人的墓碑及骨灰罈作文章。這種又罵「傾中賣台」,又要「延續前朝兩岸政策」的兩面手法,豈有可能贏得總統大選?或縱使當選豈有可能治國?

解嚴後二十餘年,民進黨在兩岸關係上,確實經過好一陣子「標新立異」的操作,曾經出現過台灣前途決議文、正名制憲、一邊一國、第二共和、去中國化、入聯公投、正常國家等等「標新立異」的台獨副牌及變體,可謂皆是民進黨就兩岸關係提出的對策試驗。但蘇蔡二人當然皆知,這些政策在今日呈現的實驗結果是全無可行。然而,蘇蔡面臨的選舉情境卻使他們既不能承認其不可行,否則即會失去了綠營支持者的熱情;卻又不能不承認其不可行,否則怎會說「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策」?

在這種「見山是山/見山不是山/見山又是山」的吊詭過程中,蘇貞昌提出「談兩岸不必標新立異」的說法,其實一方面是因民進黨過去的「標新立異」皆告失敗,另一方面也因如今已是無新可標、無異可立了。

民進黨幾乎嘗試過所有的「標新立異」的兩岸政策,主軸皆是台獨路線。原始的台獨思維是「為了對抗中華人民共和國,所以要顛覆中華民國」,但其後漸漸變質為「把對抗中華民國,當作對抗中華人民共和國」;但是,隨著國內外情勢丕變,國人漸漸感知,若顛覆中華民國,更無以對抗中華人民共和國,蘇蔡二人自然亦深知此理。因而,即無「標新立異」的餘地。

談兩岸,不要標新立異。以我們一貫的看法來說,就是一切皆回歸到中華民國憲法的架構下,未來的兩岸關係亦由中華民國的憲法程序決定;由於憲法程序必然是民主程序,所以其中當然包含了「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」。如果能夠建立這樣的共識,即可返璞歸真於憲法,不必再標新立異。

蘇貞昌所謂的「談兩岸不必標新立異」,及蔡英文的乾脆避而不談,皆顯示民進黨在兩岸政策上的僵固與枯竭,已無新可標,無異可立;許信良的投入初選,相對於於蘇蔡二人,反而是一種「標新立異」,但許其實是回歸主流而已。蘇蔡二人若不能提出「新與異」的兩岸政策,卻想選中華民國總統,借呂秀蓮的話問民進黨:你準備好了嗎?你靠得住嗎?你有這個本事嗎?

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Missing Presidential Office Case Files Must Be Investigated to the Bitter End

Missing Presidential Office Case Files Must Be Investigated to the Bitter End
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 31, 2011

As incredible as it may seem, over 36,000 Republic of China government files have sprouted wings and disappeared. Included are over 25,000 secret Ministry of Foreign Affairs files. What is even more outrageous, those responsibile for the disappearance of the documents were 17 highly-placed members of former President Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office.

State documents are national assets, especially since the passage of the Archives Act. All official documents must be filed according to specified procedures. The Archives Act was promoted by the DPP. It was implemented after Ah-Bian assumed office. Prior to the first change in ruling parties, the Chen regime was particularly worried about one thing, the smooth transfer of power. A smooth transfer of power means the military must swear allegiance to the incoming administration. It means the outgoing administration must transfer all government documents to the incoming administration. This will enable successors to know what their predecessors did. This will enable later generations to either carry on or make improvements.

What state of mind would permit an individual responsible for state policy, to cavalierly dispose of documents and thumb his nose at the nation's laws? Just before the second change in ruling parties, Chiang Lian-fu, a member of the legislature, said Chen Shui-bian's Presidential Office had purchased a large number of document shredders and was preparing to shred official documents. Many treated his accusation as a joke. Most denounced it as absurd. They did so based on the assumption that the Head of State was someone who could be trusted.

Who knew that three years later, Chiang would be vindicated? During the Chen regime's eight years in power, vast numbers of documents disappeared from the Presidential Office. Incredibly, the fate of most documents sent to the Presidential Office remains unknown. Only 0.03% of all documents were archived. One cannot excuse Chen Shui-bian by arguing that he had never served as president. After all, he had served as Taipei Mayor. Surely he knew that the documents he approved or had accessed must be archived? Surely he didn't squirrel away official muncipal government documents in his private files?

Three lowly secretaries in the Presidential Office were able to investigate the matter and issue this astonishing report. DPP officials are accusing the Presidential Office of political persecution in advance of the 2012 presidential election. They say it is no wonder the Ma administration's efficiency has been so severely criticized, it took three years to discover that official documents were missing, DPP spokesman Lin Yu-chang said the Presidential Office logs included letters of invitation and private correspondence. Lin asked how could the Presidential Office generalize and mislead the public? But Lin's non sequiteurs merely prove that DPP officials cannot face the truth, that they did nothing while Chen Shui-bian perverted the law for eight long years.

After the Ma administration took office, the Presidential Office was criticized for streamlining itself so drastically that it could no longer bear comparison with the Chen regime. But three secretaries worked all year around for three years. They were able to uncover 100 missing documents. That certainly qualifies as efficiency. The Presidential Office has indeed sent and received many documents. But all documents were logged. They were inventoried on computer. They include large numbers of "secret and unrecorded" documents that had to be logged manually. But do letters of invitation really need to be "secret and unrecorded?" More absurd is that during the Chen regime, all documents addressed to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary General, and Deputy Secretary General were directly turned over to these government officials, in flagrant defiance of the nation's laws.

Stop making wild allegations about political persecution. The Presidential Office is not above the law. A head of state must comply with the nation's laws. Anyone guilty of misplacing, destroying, concealing, or leaking official documents must bear administrative and criminal responsibility. When the Special Investigation Unit was prosecuting the Chen family's corruption, and Chen was in the Taipei Detention Center, it seized 102 boxes. It discovered over 1,500 secret documents. This was a tiny fraction of what the Presidential Office found. The case has yet to be closed. How can the Ma administration refuse to follow up? Does anyone remember Chen Shen-hui, who was responsible for the disbursement of Presidential Office expenses during the Chen regime? The Chen family was busy of embezzling funds. She on the other hand, received a meager salary. Yet she wound up behind bars. How many more Chen Shen-huis does the DPP intend to sacrifice?

The Democratic Progressive Party hopes to return to power after the 2012 presidential campaign. If the DPP were to return to power, would it overlook the misplacing or even destruction of large numbers of documents by highly placed officials within the Ma Ying-jeou administration? The rule of law makes no distinctions between Blue and Green. Even if the DPP were willing to forgive and forget, the public would not. The Ma administration is often criticized for its timidity. But a nation's laws ought to be obeyed. Eight years Chen regime misrule left the nation in chaos. The public wants a president and a government that adheres to the rule of law. Who is the DPP to say no? Are we to understand that if it returns to power, the DPP would repeat the mistakes of the Chen regime?

A year after Chen Shui-bian took office, he published his "Maiden Voyage of the Century." He revealed the secrets behind the transfer of power. He referred to the first change in ruling parties as an "verbal transfer," "a transfer of conscience," as opposed to a "systemic transfer," or "inventory transfer." he said many important events lacked even minutes of the meeting, and left him in a cold sweat. That year, he decided to establish a system for future transfers of political power. Who knew that in his hands a "verbal transfer" would suddenly become a "fraudulent transfer."

For the psst five years, the Chen family corruption scandal has been making waves. For the public, it has been a terrible nightmare. Our cherished democracy has produced a president with total disregard for the rule of law. The public is thoroughly fed up. But the the lost Presidential Office files are more than a link in the Chen family corruption scandal chain. It must be investigated to the bitter end. Ruling party change on Taiwan has become the norm. If the public on Taiwan wants to be the envy of the world, it must perfect its democracy. The first step must be strict oversight of those in power, ensuring that they cannot circumvent the law, This applies to the outgoing president, the current president, and to all future presidential candidates.

總統府檔案佚失案 必須追究到底
2011-03-31 中國時報

不可思議!中華民國政府公文竟有三萬六千多件公文不翼而飛,其中包括二萬五千多件外交祕抄;更離譜的是,帶頭讓這些公文人間蒸發的,竟是前總統陳水扁在內的十七位總統府相關高層。

國家公文屬國家資產,特別在檔案法立法後,所有公事文件都有列檔的程序,檔案法還是民進黨力推的法案,在扁政府執政後公布實施。第一次政黨輪替前,扁政府最介意的就是政權是否順利轉移,政權轉移除了軍隊宣示效忠,最重要的,當然是所有國家文書全面移交,讓後繼者得知前人所為何事,後人如何繼續或改進。

到底是什麼心態,讓執掌國家大政的人,膽敢將公文隨意處置,無視國家法治?二次政黨輪替前,立委江連福言之鑿鑿指稱總統府大量採購碎紙機,要銷毀國家公文,聞者引為笑談,多半還斥無稽,那是出於對國家元首基本的信賴。

沒想到,三年多後,證實扁政府八年執政,府內確有為數龐大的公文佚失,送進總統辦公室的公文,竟多數流向不明,歸檔率僅百分之零點零三,不要說陳水扁沒當過總統,他總當過台北市長,總知道市長批閱或調閱過的公文要歸檔,總不會私藏市府公文吧?

總統府靠三個小祕書逐一清查比對,完成這份驚人的調查報告,民進黨人痛批總統府是為了二○一二年總統大選進行的政治清算、政治迫害;質疑馬政府查三年才查出公文遺失,難怪行政效能遭到嚴厲批評,民進黨發言人林右昌並指總統府外收發登錄的文件包括邀請信、首長私函,豈可一概而論,誤導大眾;這些莫名其妙的說法,只凸顯民進黨人無法正視扁執政八年枉法真相的軟弱。

馬政府就任後,總統府用人精簡到被批評與扁政府的總統府不可同日而語,三個祕書就算全年無休,三年每天得抓到一百件佚失公文,這個效率夠高了。總統府外收發的文件確實很多,所有文件都經過文號登錄,電腦清查之外,還有更龐大的「密不錄由」文件,必須靠人工比對,請問:邀請信需要「密不錄由」嗎?更荒唐的是,扁政府時代凡公文標明給總統、副總統、與正副祕書長者,均跳過收發直送五首長,完全無視國家體制。

不要再扯什麼政治清算、政治迫害,總統府不是法外特區,即令是國家元首,都得遵守國家法令,遑論公務員遺失或故意銷毀、藏匿、洩漏公文,都是要負行政和刑事責任的,特偵組辦扁家弊案時,已經從扁於北所的舍房內查扣一百零二箱,超過一千五百件以上機密文件,這只是總統府這次清查的零頭都不到,此案還沒偵結,馬政府能不追究嗎?還記得扁政府時代的總統府出納陳鎮慧嗎?扁家A錢,她拿微薄的薪資卻受牢獄之災,吃盡苦頭,民進黨人還要犧牲幾個陳鎮慧?

民進黨志在二○一二總統大選重返執政,請問:如果民進黨果真重新執政,能容忍馬英九總統以降的總統府高官,把大量公文佚失、甚或銷毀嗎?國家法治不分藍綠,就算民進黨可容忍,人民也容不了馬英九胡搞。馬政府常被批評行事謹小慎微,從遵守國家法令規章的角度看,經過扁政府八年在國家體制上的失序,人民要求一個嚴守法治的總統和政府,民進黨能說「不」嗎?難道再執政,民進黨政府還要重蹈扁政府的覆轍嗎?

陳水扁上任一年多,就出版《世紀首航》,揭露政權移交的祕辛,書中他直指首次政權輪替,是「口頭移交」、「良心移交」,而非「制度移交」、「清冊移交」,很多重要的事「連一份會議紀錄」都沒有,讓他捏把冷汗。當年,他還立志要於政權再輪替時,建立制度。沒想到,口頭移交到了他手裡,竟成了「空頭移交」!

五年多了,扁家弊案依舊纏繞不休,對全民而言,無異是一場最大的夢魘,我們最珍視的民主竟產生出這麼一個無視法治的總統,真是受夠了。但是,總統府檔案佚失案,不能只視為扁案的一環,非追究到底不可,因為台灣政黨輪替勢成民主常態,台灣要以民主傲視全球,就得讓我們的民主臻於至善,第一步就得嚴格監督權力者沒有濫權枉法的空間,不論卸任總統、現任總統、或者是未來可能的總統人選。

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Black Money Haunts the White Tower

Black Money Haunts the White Tower
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2011

More procurement scandals have broken out in public hospitals. The Taoyuan District Court has taken four suspects into custody. They include Department of Health officials, the DOH Hospital Chief, and manufacturers. Others are out on bail and under house arrest. No one who knows anything about the medical community on Taiwan is surprised. Their reactions will be the same as former Director of Health Yang Chi-liang.

In the past, "black money," i.e., bribe money, was rampant in the larger public hospitals on Taiwan. This included implicit or explicit appeals to patients for "red envelopes," to drug manufacturers for kickbacks, to procurement personnel for commissions. It even included compulsory contributions for activities inside and outside the hospital. Fortunately, people are becoming more enlightened. Hospital management systems are gradually straightening out their act. The NHI payment system and joint procurement of drugs have made red envelopes and drug kickbacks increasingly rare. Every now and then however, prosecutors will uncover a hospital procurement scandal involving huge sums, that shock the medical community and society as a whole.

Times have changed. New medical devices swiftly become obsolete. The higher the procurement price, the more exorbitant the commissions. This presents a powerful temptation for anyone. Physicians often find themselves in control of large sums of procurement funds. Vendors lobby them day and night, assuring them they will never be found out. Such temptations are hard to resist. Therefore to those in the know, the procurement scandals that have surfaced so far are merely the tip of the iceberg.

in some large public hospitals, rumors of black money have never ended. Because both parties usually refuse to admit guilt, investigating such cases is not easy. But among some large medical equipment providers, the whispers have never stopped. One key factor is that within medical circles on Taiwan, doctors have long been king, Those in charge of large-scale procurements are usually docotrs. As a result, doctors are usually the ones caught during procurement scandals.

Over the past two years the Department of Health has increased restrictions on the outsourcing of medical operations. This may have improved the situation in some public hospitals, reducing procurement abuses. But it has not solved the problem completely. Will halting the outsourcing of medical operations prevent procurement scandals? No one would dare make such a guarantee. In fact, many hospitals benefit greatly from outsourcing. Medical expenses are reduced while income is increased. Many of these are public hospitals. But when the same measures are introduced in DOH hospitals, they paradoxically become a major source of scandals.

The cause of procurement scandals has nothing to do with outsourcing. It has everything to do with the procurement system itself. The public health care system has long opposed laymen being charged with procuring medical devices. But turning total control over to doctors unwittingly increased the opportunities for dirty money. That is why Chang Gung Memorial Hospital has long separated the requisitioners from the purchasers. The administrative staff forms a group responsible for procurement and bargaining. This makes it impossible for merchants to offer bribes. This model merits consideration.

For physicians to actively refuse bribes requires certain conditions. One way is to ensure that doctors are paid enough to keep them honest. But health insurance benefits continue to shrink. Public hospitals find it hard to make ends meet. Leave aside increases in staff salaries. Young doctors must economize on everything from food to clothing. They must work hard to succeed. When large sums of money pass through their hands, how many can resist? How many are not tempted to take something off the top?

Public hospitals want to reduce disputes over black money. They should consider the hospital's position. Public hospitals are subject to human limitations and to the procurement laws. They must be self-financing. They are non-profit public health providers. Clearly the pressure on them is too great. If public hospitals accept government subsidies, they can remain non-profit. They can avoid becoming profit-oriented. This will naturally reduce the phenomenon of black money. But this means government must underwrite their losses.

If the government is unwilling to underwite such losses, or cannot underwrite such losses, it may wish to transform them. They could be privately managed but publicly owned. Their operations could be cut back. Tainan Municipal Hospital has been privately manageed but publicly owned for 20 years. It remains one of Tainan's important medical institutions, and is very well known. There is no reason DOH hospitals could not change their operating model. Meanwhile, some Department of Health hospitals are located in resource-intensive areas. They have no particular raison d'etre. They long ago lost whatever signficance they had when they were founded. Why not phase them out, consolidate, or transform them? DOH hospitals must separate the wheat from the chaff. This will improve their overall quality.

The scandal has undermined the reputation of the medical community. The medical community must share in the shame. It must feel deep remorse. But hospitals continue to develop, and the temptation of money remains. To avoid deleterious results, they must stress medical ethics. They must also consider more fundamental factors. They must cure the disease at its root, and not merely suppress its symptoms. Only then can they eliminate this chronic illness.

白色巨塔中的黑錢糾葛
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.30

公立醫院又發生採購弊案,桃園地院羈押了衛生署官員、署立醫院院長及廠商共四人,另有多人交保並限制住居。只要是對台灣醫界生態稍有認識的人,反應大概都會和前衛生署長楊志良一樣:一點都不意外。

過去,台灣大型公立醫院中的黑錢橫行,包括暗示或明示病人送紅包、藥商給回扣、採購給佣金,甚至醫院內外各種活動的不樂之捐等,不一而足;幸而隨著民智漸開、醫院管理制度漸上軌道,加以全民健保給付制度及藥品實施聯合採購等,已使紅包及藥品回扣的新聞近年來漸不多見。取而代之的,檢調單位每隔一陣子總會揭發一樁醫院採購弊案,涉及數額龐大,震驚了醫界與整個社會。

隨著時代進步,醫療儀器快速推陳出新,採購單價越來越高,佣金也相對的更為驚人,這對任何人都可能形成極大誘惑;定力不夠的醫師一旦有機會掌控金額鉅大的採購案時,在廠商夜以繼日的遊說與安全保證下,難保不心動。因此在有識者眼中,浮出檯面的採購弊案極可能只是冰山一角。

事實上,在一些大型公立醫院中,涉嫌收受黑錢的傳聞不斷,只是因為施受雙方通常堅不承認,查緝並不容易;但在一些大型醫療器材商之間,類似的耳語從未間斷。其間一個重要的關鍵是,在台灣的醫療生態圈中,醫師一向獨大,醫院中提出大型採購案的主要是醫師,採購案的管理者通常也是醫師,因此在醫療採購弊案中醫師往往身陷其間。

也因此,衛生署近兩年推動的限制醫療外包作業,或許部分改善了公立醫院的一些弊病,減少採購弊端,卻很難徹底解決這個問題。醫療作業不外包就不會發生採購弊案了嗎?恐怕沒有人敢做這樣的保證。其實,不少醫院因實施醫療外包作業而大受其惠,非但醫療支出減省了,收入也增加了,而其中不乏公立醫院;但同樣的措施引進署立醫院以後,何以反而成了弊案的源頭之一?

採購弊案的關鍵,其實不在外包與否,而在採購制度本身。公立醫療體系素來反對由外行人負責醫療器械的議價與採購,但在醫師全程主導下,無形中增加了收受黑錢的機會;在這方面,長庚醫院始終堅持申購人與採購人分離,由行政人員組成採購小組負責詢價、議價的做法,令廠商根本無從行賄,值得參考。

要求醫師主動拒絕廠商的賄賂,一個主觀條件是,也許要讓醫師覺得能獲得足以「養廉」的待遇。但在目前,全民健保不斷的緊縮給付,使多數公立醫院的經營喘不過氣來,遑論增加醫護人員的薪酬。從節衣縮食中苦熬出頭的年輕醫師,一旦遇到鉅額金錢過手,還有多少人能把持得住,不想從中撈點油水?

公立醫院要想減少與黑錢的糾葛,現階段更應考量醫院的定位問題:公立醫院都受到人力員額及採購法的限制,需自負盈虧,又得承辦不賺錢的公共衛生業務,顯然經營壓力過大;公立醫院如能接受政府預算補貼,不以營利為目標,更避免以利潤為導向,自然可以減少黑錢流竄的現象。只不過,如此一來,政府必須承擔公立醫院的虧損。

如果政府不願或沒有能力負擔公立醫院的虧損,則不妨考量讓它們轉型,譬如公辦民營,或者減量經營。台南市立醫院公辦民營廿多年來,現已成為台南地區重要的醫療院所,而且頗負盛名,各地署立醫院沒有理由不能改變經營形態。同時,部分署立醫院位在醫療資源密集地區,又不具特色,早已失去當初設立的時代意義,為什麼不及早廢除、整併或轉型呢?署立醫院去蕪存菁後,對提升整體的服務效能應更有助益。

本案使醫界名譽再受重創,這是醫界應同感恥辱並深刻反省的時刻。但是,在醫院發展的過程中,金錢誘惑無時無刻不在,要杜絕可能因而產生的弊端,除了強調醫師要有醫德之外,尤應考量更根本的原因,做標本兼治之計,才能徹底解決多年來久治不癒的沉?。

Monday, March 28, 2011

Lin Chueh-min-min Wants Nothing More than a Ballot

Lin Chueh-min-min Wants Nothing More than a Ballot
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 29, 2011

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Huanghuagang Uprising. It is also Youth Day. When one thinks of Huanghuagang, one invariably thinks of Lin Chueh-min, and the deeply felt, tragic letter he wrote his wife just before his death. It added an exclamation point to the nationalist revolution that will endure through the ages.

Both sides of the Taiwan Strait commemorate the Xinhai Revolution. Both sides commemorate Lin Chueh-min. On Taiwan, TV channels broadcast Lin Chueh-min commercials. "In his letter, he called out to his beloved wife 49 times. Three days later, he died at the Battle of Huanghuagang, and never returned. He was only 24 years old." On the Mainland, the Guangdong Repertory Theatre staged a "Letter to His Wife." It debuted last March at the Taipei City New Stage. Blood red letters filled the air. The scene left the audience incredulous.

The greatness of the Xinhai Revolution was not merely that red-blooded patriots such as Lin Chueh-min overthrew a tyranny in which "the land reeked with the scent of blood, and the streets ran wild with jackals and hyenas." More importantly, the revolution ended two thousand years of tyranny. Hopefully future generations will no longer need a Lin Chueh-min to sacrifice himself resisting tyranny. Hopefully people will simply exercise their right to vote in order to remain masters of their nation and of their government. The greatness of Lin Chueh-min is that he may have made future Lin Chueh-mins superfluous.

The Xinhai Revolution had an indelible impact on both sides of the Strait. On Taiwan, the Republic of China left behind the legacy of the Three People's Principles, i.e., "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." This was why Taiwan has been able to survive and develop. This was why the two sides have been able to engage in cross-Strait exchanges and strive for win-win symbiosis. On the mainland, the bankruptcy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and of "class struggle" reaffirmed Sun Yat-sen's status as a "revolutionary forerunner." The Xinhai Revolution touted "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," It provided a political and ideological alternative. Otherwise, the portrait of Sun Yat-sen would not be displayed opposite that of Mao Zedong, in Tiananmen Square, every November. Even indigenous political activists on Taiwan, beginning with Japanese occupation era figures Lo Fu-hsing, Lin Hsien-tang, Chiang Wei-shui, were inspired and guided by the Xinhai Revolution, and made it "Taiwan's Xinhai Revolution."

The Xinhai Revolution was an historical event nearly erased from our collective memory. On the Mainland, in 1949, the Peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution replaced the Nationalist Revolution. The Communist Revolution nearly erased the Xinhai Revolution from our memories. On Taiwan, the "nativization movement" disseminated outright distortions. 2/28 Incident rhetoric hijacked the history of the Xinhai Revolution. De-Sinicization, needless to say, de-emphasized the Xinhai Revolution. But history has retraced its steps. Once again, Republic of China citizens swear allegiance to the Xinhai Revolution. It has also become a common denominator for the two sides of the Strait. Lin Chueh-min has become the symbol of our shared history, and the basis for consensus building.

Then again, 100 years have passed. On Taiwan, the Xinhai Revolution's goal of "one man, one vote" has already been realized. Young people no longer need to follow the example of Lin Chueh-min. They need only acknowledge, appreciate, and exercise their right to vote. On the mainland, they praise the Xinhai Revolution's ideals. But it would be better if they worked toward the goal of universal suffrage. They praise Lin Chueh-min's heroic martyrdom. But it would be better if they gave young people the vote. It would be better if they did not make young people today experience the same despair Lin Chueh-min experienced a century ago.

Merely commemorating Lin Chueh-min as someone who protested corrupt government is not enough. Lin Chueh-min and others embarked on a sacred mission. They established a system for future generations, in which everyone would have a vote. Today both sides are commemorating the Xinhai Revolution. Why not make the goal "giving everyone the vote?"

Mainland China's ultimate goal should be to give everyone the vote. Taiwan's problem is how to ensure that everyone cherishes and makes good use of their votes. Young people on Taiwan today no longer need to be Lin Chueh-min-Mins. But consider the revolution from the perspective of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood." The world and the nation are far more complex than they were during Lin Chueh-min's day. During Lin Chueh-min's day, right and wrong were clear cut. Young people could sacrifice their lives for justice. But youth on Taiwan today face competitive pressures from globalization, unpredictable cross-Strait coopetition, Blue vs. Green domestic politics, and the mendacious rhetoric of politicians. A correct understanding of "nationalism, democracy, and the peoples livelihood," individually and collectively, is even more difficult than during Lin Chueh-min's day. Young people on Taiwan today may not need to shed blood and sacrifice their lives like Lin Chueh-min. But the duty imposed upon them is just as heavy, intellectually and emotionally, than the duy imposed upon Lin Chueh-min. They too must make important choices. They too must sacrifice themselves for the ones they love. They too must sacrifice themselves for humanity.

The inscription on the Huanghuagang memorial mourns martyrs such as Huang Hsing-cho and Lin Chueh-min. It reads, "Seventy-two youths in their prime, shed crimson blood in pitched battle. Four hundred trillion sons of the nation, looked on as autumn rains fell upon golden petals." Spring winds and autumn rains. Crimson blood and golden petals. Today's cross-Strait issues can be reduced to a single phrase. Enfranchise the disenfranchised. It is no longer necessary to be a Lin Chueh-min. It is only necessary to ensure that everyone able to vote, feels the same compassion that Lin Chueh-min felt, and cherishes and makes full use of his vote.

林覺民要的只是一張選票
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.29

今天是黃花崗起義一百年紀念日,也是青年節。想到黃花崗,就想到林覺民,一聲意映卿卿如晤,深情又淒絕的一喚,為整個國民革命留下了一個激盪千古的感嘆號!

兩岸皆在紀念辛亥革命,兩岸亦皆在紀念林覺民。在台灣,電視廣告播著林覺民,「他在信中呼喚愛妻四十九次,三天後黃花崗之役,他再也沒有回來了,得年二十四歲。」在對岸,廣東話劇團排演了一齣《與妻書》,在去年三月還在台北市新舞台劇場公演,漫天撒下血染的信箋,令人低迴不置。

辛亥革命的偉大,不止是如林覺民者以鮮血推翻一個「遍地腥羶,滿街狼犬」的惡政,最重要的是革命之目的在終結二千餘年專制,希望後世不須再有殉身抗暴的「林覺民」,人民只要用手中的選票即可作國家與政府的主人。林覺民的偉大,正在希望後世不必再有「林覺民」。

辛亥革命對兩岸皆有不可磨滅的影響。在台灣,中華民國所傳承的三民主義「民族/民權/民生」,既是台灣之所以能生存發展至今日的根本追求,亦是在兩岸關係中尋求雙贏共生的主要憑藉。在大陸,則當「無產階級專政」及「以階級鬥爭為綱」的教條破產,孫中山做為「革命先行者」,及辛亥革命標舉的「民族/民權/民生」,儼已成政治思想上的替代或補充,否則孫中山遺像不會每年十一出現在天安門毛澤東像的對立面。即使對於台灣的本土政治運動言,始自日據時代羅福星、林獻堂、蔣渭水等的民主追求,當然也是受到辛亥革命的感召與啟迪,成為「台灣的辛亥革命」。

但是,辛亥革命一度卻是一個幾乎要被塗銷抹煞的歷史事件。在大陸,一九四九年中華人民共和國取代了中華民國,無產階級革命取代了國民革命,辛亥革命幾幾乎就要被中共塗銷、抹煞。在台灣,隨著本土化運動的扭曲,「二二八論述」欲凌駕取代「辛亥革命論述」,「去中國化」當然就走向「去辛亥革命化」。然而,當歷史的腳步逐漸從這一條岔路走回頭,辛亥革命又成為中華民國建立國家認同的題材,亦成為兩岸的共同語言,林覺民則又成了召喚歷史與建構共識的典型人物。

但是,畢竟已經一百年了。在台灣,辛亥革命當年追求的「人人都有一張選票」已經實現,不必再要青年們效法林覺民,只要青年們知道珍惜及並善用這張選票即可。在大陸,則與其禮讚辛亥革命的理想,不如朝「給人人一張選票」的目標去努力;與其歌頌林覺民的壯烈,亦不如努力設法給青年一張選票,勿使當代青年仍有一百年前林覺民式的抑鬱。

若只看到林覺民等對抗昏庸腐敗的政府,這是不夠的;林覺民等更神聖的追求,是要建立制度,欲為後世人人爭到一張選票。今日兩岸共同紀念辛亥革命,何不即以「給人人一張選票」做為目標。

大陸的目標應在努力設法終究要給人人一張選票,台灣的問題則在如何珍惜及善用這張選票。其實,今日台灣青年雖可不做「林覺民」,但就「民族/民權/民生」的角度來說,其面對的世界局勢與國家情勢可能較林覺民時代更為複雜。林覺民那個時代,是非判然,青年可以為正義而殉身;但今日台灣的青年,在全球化的競爭壓力、競合莫測的兩岸關係、藍綠撕裂的國內政治,及買空賣空的政客語言中,如何正確體認「民族/民權/民生」個別層面及綜合思考的是非曲直,反而可能較林覺民的時代來得困惑難解。這一代台灣青年,不必做流血殉身的「林覺民」,但其在理智與情感上所承負的國家使命未必輕於林覺民當時;因為,皆是一個「吾充吾愛汝之心,助天下人愛其所愛」的重大抉擇。

黃興悼林覺民等黃花崗烈士文曰:「七十二健兒,酣戰春雲湛碧血;四百兆國子,愁看秋雨濕黃花。」春風秋雨,碧血黃花,今日的兩岸問題可以化約作:給沒有選票的人人一張選票,不必再作「林覺民」;讓有選票的人人以「林覺民」那種聖潔悲憫的心情,知道珍惜並善用那張選票。

Friday, March 25, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen's Cutthroat Attacks Harm Nuclear Power Plants

Tsai Ing-wen's Cutthroat Attacks Harm Nuclear Power Plants
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 26, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen said that if elected president, she will ensure that Nuclear Plant Four never goes into commercial operation. She also said she would halt construction on the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project.

In fact, if Tsai Ing-wen is elected, she may halt or abolish more than just these two projects. Tsai Ing-wen also said that if the Democratic Progressive Party once again assumes power, it would repudiate the 1992 consensus, rethink ECFA, and abandon "growth first" economic policies.

Tsai Ing-wen has taken the DPP's "cut-throat tactics" to the limit. What are cut-throat tactics? A nation's survival and development requires a macroeconomic framework. This general framework is different for every nation. It is usually difficult to cover every policy issue within this framework. Therefore when dealing with the many policy issues that fall under this general framework, one must often make different choices. For example, for Saudi Arabia, nuclear power generation is not an issue. Relations between the ROK and PRC do not require an SEF. But the ROC has different concerns than Saudi Arabia. When the ROC and the PRC conduct exchanges, they must don white gloves. In other words, specific policies will vary depending upon the general framework. One cannot divorce specific policies from the general framework and deal with them individually.

In the Republic of China, the general political and economic framework involves issues of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, cross-Strait relations and globalization. Specific policies are more or less subject to constraints imposed by this general framework. The first thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is divorce the general framework from specific policies. Tsai Ing-wen repudiates the general framework of 1992 consensus. She talks only of specific policies, such as cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. She wants a general framework of globalization. But she also wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. Taiwan independence is utterly inconsistent with the general framework of the Republic of China. Yet she persists in addressing specific policies while ignoring the general framework.

The second thing the DPP's cut-throat tactics do, is chop specific policies into even smaller pieces, and incite social division with each of these pieces. The DPP incites as much social division as possible using these pieces. It engages in cut-throat tactics, until no one is left breathing.

Tsai Ing-wen's campaign strategy already shows signs of ignoring the general framework while exploiting specific policy issues. She ignores the general framework of national allegiance, constitutional allegiance, and cross-Strait relations. She ruthlessly exploits specific issues to the hilt. She repudiates the 1992 consensus, thereby appealing to the Deep Greens. She opposes nuclear power generation and the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project, thereby appealing to environmental groups. She expresses support for "lu yi teh" compensation, thereby appealing to army veterans. She opposes the 18% special interest rate, thereby appealing to those who resent civil service retirees. She supports first time voters, thereby appealing to the young. The supports impoverished students, thereby appealing to class consciousness. She bills herself as "rational," thereby appealing to moderate voters.

Tsai Ing-wen would deny that she is calculating. But she calculates that she can ignore the general framework. She calculates that as long as the public loses sight of the general framework, she can address only specific issues and win the presidency. Such cut-throat tactics were not Tsai's invention. They have been the DPP's standard operating procedure for the past 20 years. Take subsidies for seniors and farmers. The DPP knows that its general framework is fragile and questionable. Therefore it avoids talking about it. Instead, it demagogues specific issues.

Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the 1992 consensus? She said "If elected, I will continue the former administration's cross-Strait policy." Does Tsai Ing-wen really stand for the total abolition of nuclear power generation? If she does, why not begin by decommissioning Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three? Does Tsai Ing-wen really oppose the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project? Then why did she lobby on behalf of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project when it was undergoing EIA, and she was vice premier? Does Tsai Ing-wen really support "lu yi teh" compensation for Army veterans? Then why did she not include full compensation in her campaign platform? From this it should be clear that Tsai Ing-wen ignores the general framework in order to exploit specific issues. When discussing political and economic issues, she puts the cart before the horse. She contradicts herself. She fails to balance the pros and cons, She ignores conflicts of interest. She demagogues isolated issues, but fails to offer a comprehensive plan for governing the nation.

In fact, Tsai Ing-wen is not unaware of the relationship between the general framework and specific policies. During the party primaries she spoke of the general framework. She declared that "Taiwan [sic] is a nation facing a difficult dilemma." She spoke of specific issues. She she declared that "[ROC] sovereignty, diplomacy, economics, fiscal affairs, distribution of wealth, education, public safety, ecology, social welfare, and the rule of law, are complex issues that cannot be reduced to slogans." But now Tsai Ing-wen cannot even offer a decent slogan, such as "peace with differences, peace while seeking commonalities." On specific issues, she calls for a halt in the construction of Nuclear Plant Four, and demagogues the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. Tsai Ing-wen calls for a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four, and the development of renewable energy. She opposes the petrochemical industry. She calls for petrochemical industry restructuring! She opposes the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical project. She says it should be moved to Saudi Arabia! She wants to suppress cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges, She wants to abandon "growth first" economic policies! It would appear that all her policy proposals have been reduced to slogans. Does anyone find that ironic?

Such cut throat tactics cannot successfully build a nation. Tsai Ing-wen may be able to use cut-throat tactics to win the party primary and the presidential election. But when her cut-throat tactics undermine her presidency, how can she possibly "bear the burden of the future?"

蔡英文割喉割到核電廠
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.26

蔡英文說,她若當選總統,將推動核四不商業運轉,並停止國光石化案。

其實,蔡英文若當選,可能停廢的不只是這兩件事。蔡英文也說過,民進黨再執政,要否定「九二共識」、要重估「ECFA」,並要揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策。

蔡英文將民進黨的「割喉戰術」施展得淋漓盡致。先談什麼叫做割喉戰?每一個國家的生存發展,都必須有一個宏觀通盤的總架構,在此可稱為「總題」;通常,這個總架構或總題因個別國家各自的不同條件,而皆難面面俱到,因此,在根據這個「總題」,來處理不同政策領域的「分題」時,即會呈現不同的抉擇。比如說,沙烏地阿拉伯不會有核電的問題,韓國與中國交往不必有「海基會」;但在台灣談核電就與沙烏地阿拉伯有不同的考慮,中華民國與中華人民共和國交往就要先戴上白手套。也就是說,「分題」是「總題」的依變項,不能脫離「總題」而割裂處理「分題」。

在中華民國,政經「總題」的主要元素包含國家認同、憲法認同、兩岸關係及全球化等;其他「分題」則或多或少皆受這個「總題」的制約與影響。民進黨的割喉戰術,第一個步驟就是將「總題」與「分題」割開。蔡英文否定「九二共識」(總題),而談「兩岸經貿」(分題);欲發展「全球化」(總題),卻抑制「兩岸經貿」(分題);台獨路線則是在根本否定「中華民國」這個「總題」之下,去談論其他的「分題」。

割喉戰術的第二個步驟,是將各個「分題」也切割肢解開來,並將每一「分題」的社會矛盾分別摳挖出來,以割取每一分每一毫的對立因素,甚至不惜割到喉斷氣絕。

蔡英文的競選策略已經浮現這種「割去總題,剁爛分題」的手法。關於國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係的「總題」,她迴避,她割開;但對每一個可以引發爭議的「分題」,她則盡情把它剁爛,血腥四溢。反對「九二共識」,割向深綠的喉嚨;反對核電及國光石化,割向環保團體的喉嚨;聲援陸一特,割向要求賠償者的喉嚨;反十八趴,割向憎惡公務員者的喉嚨;抬捧首投族,割向年輕族群的喉嚨;對昏燈下的學童表態,割向階級意識的喉嚨;標榜理性,割向中間選民的喉嚨……。

蔡英文的「算計」(她說她不會算計)是:只要把「總題」割開甩掉,讓大家忘掉「總題」,她就能從「分題」切割下來的肉丁骨渣之中當選總統。這種「割喉戰術」其實並非蔡英文的首創,而是民進黨二十餘年來的看家本領,如老農津貼。民進黨自知其「總題論述」既脆弱又令人質疑,所以迴避「總題」,而更要用「分題」來割喉。

蔡英文反「九二共識」嗎?她卻說:「若執政將延續前朝兩岸政策。」蔡英文主張全面廢核電嗎?何以不從核一二三廠除役思考起?蔡英文反國光石化嗎?何以在行政院副院長任內為國光石化的環評關說?蔡英文挺陸一特嗎?何以尚未見她將全面賠償列為競選政見?由此可以預見:蔡英文這種「割去總題,剁爛分題」的手法,將使她的政經論述本末倒置、自相矛盾、輕重失衡、利害衝突,成為支離破碎的割喉語言,而無可能構成一套自圓其說的治國方案。

其實,蔡英文不是不知「總題」與「分題」的關聯。她在初選宣言中說:「台灣是一個處境艱難的國家(總題),主權、外交、經濟、財政、分配、教育、治安、生態、社福、法治,這些複雜的問題(皆是分題)根本無法簡化成一個口號」。但是,現在的蔡英文,在「總題」上,連一句像樣的「口號」也提不出來(和而不同,和而求同?);在「分題」上,則用停核四、停國光石化等「口號」來割喉。蔡英文說,停核四,發展再生能源嘛!反石化業,調整產業結構嘛!反國光石化,搬到沙烏地阿拉伯嘛!抑制兩岸經貿交流,揚棄「成長掛帥」的經濟政策嘛!這些主張,似乎皆可「簡化成一個口號」:何不食肉糜?

割喉議題不能造就一個完整的國家。也許,蔡英文有可能以割喉戰術贏得初選及總統大選;但是,當她在割喉戰術造成的肉丁骨屑中就任總統,她將憑什麼「將未來扛起來」?

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Cross-Strait Talent Competition Means Taipei Must Let Mainland Students In

Cross-Strait Talent Competition Means Taipei Must Let Mainland Students In
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2011

The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office has announced that beginning this year, Mainland universities will recruit high school graduates from Taiwan without requiring them to take entrance exams. They will broaden their standards to include academic scores from Taiwan. According to estimates, 30,000 or more students on Taiwan will become eligible. Beijing University, Beijing Tsinghua University, Fudan University, and other prestigious Mainland universities will be among the 205 universities listed. Students may apply for admission without entrance exams. Those passing a live interview will be admitted and enrolled.

There is no denying that expanded Mainland recruitment of students from Taiwan will impact university education on Taiwan. The reason is simple. The Mainland is on the rise. Its annual growth rate exceeds eight or nine percent. Well-known universities the world over have all added "understanding of China" to their curriculum. The Mainland is vast. Although its universities are of mixed quality, many of them are famous and historic universities that rank among the world's finest. They have attracted considerable attention. The two sides have the same roots. Culture and language pose no barriers. Attending university there is relatively easy. For students from Taiwan, studying on the Mainland holds considerable appeal.

In addition, the Mainland market has great potential. Cross-Strait exchanges are increasingly close. For Taiwan, the Mainland has become an indispensable partner in economic and trade development. Students from Taiwan studying on the Mainland, can choose to stay on the Mainland or to return to Taiwan for future employment. They enjoy options. From the perspective of workplace diversity, studying on Mainland China also allows students to establish contacts for the future. Of course, another factor cannot be ignored. Tuition and fees for students studying on the Mainland are much lower than for students studying in Europe and the US.

In fact, in recent years more and more students from Taiwan are studying on the Mainland. Over 40% of the children of businessmen from Taiwan on the Mainland, are choosing to stay on the Mainland to study. Last year, for the first time, the Mainland admitted the top 12% of students from Taiwan, based on academic grades, into Mainland universities without requiring entrance exams. Eighty-three high school graduates were admitted to 37 Mainland universities. This year the Mainland has broadened its standards to include the top 25% of all students from Taiwwan. Any student able to gain admission to Fu Jen Catholic University may apply. As one can imagine, the number of students applying for admission to Mainland universities this year has exploded.

So what should the government do? This is more than a competition between schools. This is a competition for human resources. These young people will attend university. After completing their studies, they will become the vanguard of the labor market, They will also become the main force behind the nation's development. The probability of a brain drain has increased. At the same time, we lack the courage to open ourselves up. The Mainland has opened itself up to students from Taiwan, virtually without limits. Taiwan, on the other hand, persists in tying Mainland students hand and foot. We deny them scholarships. We deny them extra credits. We deny them the right to moonlight. We deny them professional certification after graduation. We deny them the opportunity to seek work on Taiwan. Superficially, these restrictions protect the interests of students on Taiwan. In fact they merely limit the possibilities for students from the Mainland. In other words, no matter how good universities on Taiwan might be, the incentive for outstanding students from the mainland to apply will be limited. The result can be imagined. The two sides are competing for outstanding university students. The numbers will rise and fall. The competitiveness of universities on Taiwan is certain to fall. Once it does, a vicious will begin, and they will find it increasingly difficult to attract the best students.

This is not merely a cross-Strait competition for talent. This is a global competition for talent. The Mainland has picked up its pace. Taiwan meanwhile, is spinning its wheels. The Ministry of Education boasts that "The quality of universities on Taiwan is better than those on the Mainland." "We recognize only 41 universites on the Mainland." "The two sides have a tacit understanding to recruit no more than 2000 students." Such whistling in the dark will not reverse our fortunes. Can superior private universities on Taiwan ignore competition from Beijing University, Tsinghua University, and Fudan University? Students from Taiwan studying on Mainland China may attend schools not recognized by the Ministry of Education, But university attendance does not mark the end academic life. The government may refuse to recognize their diplomas. But Europe and the United States will. After graduating from universities on the Mainland, students may seek advanced degrees in Europe or the US. They may or may not return to Taiwan to work or conduct research. Their academic credentials will not be an issue. Far more worrisome is the Ministry of Education's negativity. These outstanding young people may choose never to return. Doesn't that constitute a far greater loss to the nation? Forget the fact that the Ministry of Education lacks the wherewithal to verify whether the Mainland has admitted only 2000 students from Taiwan.

Time waits for no man. The Mainland is undergoing vigorous development. It is not about to wait for Taiwan to catch up. In the face of competition, the government must accelerate our opening up. We must adopt international standards. The Obama administration has decided to send 100,000 students a year to Mainland China. Hong Kong and Singapore are offering generous scholarships to Mainland students. Taipei's policy regarding Mainland students is in clear defiance of gobal trends. This highlights the serious lack of self-confidence on Taiwan.

We live in an era of global competition. National competitiveness is tied to individual competitiveness. The Mainland is rapidly catching up in all areas. It is displaying powerful ambitions. It is liberalizing in one area after another. Even Europe and America must remain vigilant. They cannot afford to take matters lightly. If we constantly tie our own hands, it will negatively impact higher education. it will harm the development of human resources on Taiwan. The government must adopt a more inclusive posture. It must contemplate its own globalization and regional integration. It must contemplate even the Mainland's role as it too undergoes globalization. We were once proud of the "Taiwan experience." We did not impose limits on ourselves. In the face of competition, we must once again open ourselves to the world. We must once again pick up the pace.

兩岸人才競爭 台灣須速開放陸生
2011-03-25 中國時報

大陸國台辦日前宣布,從今年開始,大陸大學免試招收台灣高中畢業生的標準,由學測的頂標級擴大至前標級。根據估算,台灣約有三萬多位學生符合申請資格,可向包括北京大學、北京清華大學及復旦大學等大陸頂尖名校在內的二百零五所大學,提出免試入學申請,經面試合格者,就可錄取就讀。

無可諱言,大陸擴大對台招收大學生,勢必對台灣的大學教育造成某種程度的衝擊。原因很簡單,大陸正在崛起,每年GDP成長率都在八、九%以上,全世界知名大學都將《認識中國》列為學習地圖,大陸幅員廣闊,盡管大學良莠不齊,但仍有不少知名且歷史悠久的大學在世界排名中,相當搶眼,遑論兩岸同根同源,不論在文化語言上都沒有溝通的障礙,就學相對容易,留學大陸,對台灣學子而言,確實有一定的吸引力。

此外,大陸市場潛力無窮,兩岸交流益發密切,大陸已經成為台灣經貿發展不可或缺的重要夥伴之一,台生赴大陸就學,未來可選擇留在大陸或返台就業,進可攻退可守;從職場多元化選擇的角度,赴大陸就學還可以累積未來的人脈資源。當然,還有一個不可忽視的因素:留學大陸的學雜費,遠比留學歐美來得便宜許多。

事實上,這幾年在大陸就學的台生愈來愈多,台商子弟選擇留在大陸繼續求學者已達四成以上;去年大陸第一次對台灣學測成績排前十二%的頂標生提供免試入學,就有八十三位高中畢業生,由卅七所大陸大學錄取。今年大陸擴大招收前廿五%的前標生,推估只要考取輔大以上的學生,都可以申請,可想而知,今年申請免試進入大陸大學的人數必然暴增。

那麼台灣該怎麼辦呢?要知道,這已經不只是兩岸學校間的競爭,而是兩岸的人才競爭,這些就讀大學的年輕人,在完成學業後,都是就業市場的尖兵,也是國家社會發展的主力,我們的人才外流機率升高,又缺乏膽識大幅開放,對比大陸不設限的開放台生免試赴陸就學,台灣到現在對陸生的態度依舊綁手綁腳,不給獎學金、不加分、不能打工,畢業後不能考職業證照、不能在台工作…,種種限制表面上是維護台灣學生的權益,實際上則是限縮陸生來台的機會,換言之,就算台灣大學再頂尖,恐怕都缺乏充足的誘因,來吸引大陸優秀學子。想像得到,當兩岸大學因為優秀學生的消長,台灣的大學勢將陷入競爭力滑落,也愈難吸引優秀學生的惡性循環。

更重要的,這還不只是一場兩岸人才競爭,而是全球人才競爭,大陸加速開跑,台灣卻原地打轉,教育部好整以暇地說,「台灣大學素質比大陸好」、「我們只承認對岸四十一所大學」、「雙方有默契各招收不超過二千名學生」云云,都不足以扭轉形勢。台灣辦學優良的私校對上北大、清華、復旦的競爭,能不憂心嗎?赴大陸就學的台生,就算就讀的學校非教育部所認定,但大學不是人生求學的終點站,台灣不承認其學歷,歐美國家承認,讀完大陸大學再赴歐美取得更高學位,不論未來返台工作或考證照,就沒有承認學歷的問題,更讓人擔心的是,如果因為教育部的消極作為,這些優秀的年輕人索性不回台,國家的損失豈不更大?更甭提教育部哪來的能力查核對岸到底是否招收超過二千名學生!

時間不等人,大陸蓬勃發展的同時,更不會停下腳步等台灣。面對競爭,台灣只能加速開放,與國際接軌,美國歐巴馬政府都決定每年送出十萬名學生赴大陸學習,香港、新加坡則以豐厚優渥的獎學金爭取陸生,台灣的陸生政策顯然違反這股世界潮流,更嚴重凸顯台灣信心不足的問題。

這是一個全球競爭的時代,國家競爭力正繫於人才競爭力,大陸各方面發展都急起直追,展現旺盛的企圖心,開放措施一個接著一個,連歐美國家都嚴陣以待,不敢輕忽,我們若始終自縛手腳,對高等教育必然有負面影響,對國家人才培育更為不利。台灣應該放大格局,思考自己在全球化、區域整合,乃至大陸與世界接軌的過程中,能扮演什麼角色。我們曾經引以為傲的「台灣經驗」,從來不是自我限縮的,面對競爭,只能開放再開放,加速再加速。

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Political Posturing Worthless During a Disaster

Political Posturing Worthless During a Disaster
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2011

Summary: The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.

Full Text below:

The equanimity of the Japanese people during the recent earthquake made the world sit up and take notice. By contrast, the Japanese government was sluggish in its relief efforts. Its response to the nuclear emergency was bungled and disappointing. The government is charged with the distribution of national resources, with determining priorities, and with leading pubic opinion. But when disaster struck, Tokyo was nearly impotent. The disaster revealed the government's incompetence. People need to consider reigning in the power of Leviathan government.

Over the past two decades, Japan has remained mired in recession. The same is true on the political stage, where efforts to divide and rule and political unrest have aggravated each other. The recent disaster was a complex disaster. Any government would have been overwhelmed. The Japanese government's performance was worse than usual. It was opaque as well. Local government relief and resettlement efforts were fairly orderly. But the transport of post-disaster relief materiel was relatively slow. Victims suffered from both bereavement and starvation. The civil service, long praised for its machine-like efficiency, seems to have gotten rusty.

The scenario in Japan has held up a mirror to the public on Taiwan, and allowed them to see their own problems. Faced with a major crisis similar to Japan's, could we do better? This is probably a question neither the ruling and opposition parties, nor anyone else on Taiwan can answer in the affirmative. No one in our current political environment cares a whit about making advance preparations for future disasters, or about solving social problems. They care only about paving the way for their own political ambitions, and erecting obstacles in the path of their political opponents. Once disaster strikes, the first reaction of politicians is to point fingers at others, and make excuses for themselves. No one is willing to approach problems pragmatically.

The March 20 anti-nuclear protest march was a stark example. Radiation leakages in Japan have forced the public on Taiwan to rethink the issues. New responses to nuclear power plant safety management and crisis response are needed. We may even need to consider alternatives to nuclear power generation. This should have been the goal of the protest march. This activity was initiated by environmental groups. Yet Green Camp politicians normally indifferent to these issues positioned themselves at the head of the procession, They hogged the media limelight. They usurped the protest march, and turned it into a campaign rally. Environmentalists were pushed to the back of the procession. Kungliao villagers were ignored from start to finish. Political grandstanding reached new lows.

The DPP has shrilly opposed nuclear power generation for 20 years. But when it was in office, it first halted then restarted construction on Nuclear Plant Four. Now that it is once again in the opposition, it has returned to shouting anti-nuclear slogans. Its repeated waffling grossly increased the cost of Nuclear Plant Four, and repeatedly delayed its completion. The introduction of more variables has jeopardized future security. Worst of all, the DPP has never sought to make nuclear oversight and management more professional. It has sought only to hog the anti-nuclear spotlight. How can such opportunism possibly promote the safe use of nuclear energy?

The DPP's anti-nuclear posturing is merely one example. Everyday on Taiwan, the political agenda brims over with hypocritical expressions of concern. None of them ever hit their targets, because none of them are rooted in professionalism or genuine concern. That is why they are expressed in such strident terms. That is why they required props and sensationalism. That is why city and county council members insisted on brandishing flaming torches. That is why legislators demanded that a Japanese flag be flown at half mast. That is why they demanded that Taipower present a list of 50 deceased persons. That is why they made political hay out of the inscription on someone else's funerary urn. Which of these political gestures did anything to promote the public welfare? Which of these political gestures was sincere, responsible, and substantive?

Democracy on Taiwan has spun its wheels for over a decade. It has transitioned from a multi-party system to a two party system. The energies of both the ruling and opposition parties have been squandered on electioneering, mobilization, and the struggle for power, not on growing the economy. The situation is clear to see. First, politicians engage in theatrical question and answer sessions. They undermine official efforts to maintain professionalism, while offering no solutions of their own. Secondly, politicians use ideology to distort the significance of real world events. They prevent anyone else from finding solutions to the problems. Thirdly, politicians resort to populist demagoguery. They engage in glib sophistry. They abet the rise of extremism. Those unwilling to sink so low soon take themselves out of the running. Politicians on Taiwan have created far more problems than they have ever solved.

In times of peace, populist grandstanding merely results in overspending. But in times of crisis, the truth emerges. Japan experienced a three in one disaster. Politicians in Tokyo spouted pious rhetoric. Self-disciplined members of the public on the other hand, helped maintain social order. Courageous rescuers laid down their lives attempting to bring the nuclear disaster under control. If not for them, who knows where Japan might be? The disaster has taught the public on Taiwan a lesson. When disaster strikes, political grandstanding is worthless. A nation can successfully respond to a crisis only if the ruling and opposition parties forsake their habit of empty posturing. The public must vote out politicians who only blow hot air.

A number of politicians are vying for the presidency, They are seeking high office. But have they ever considered the weighty responsibility they must assume? Are they really prepared?

遇上災難,政治一點都不管用
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.24

這次震災,日本民眾的沉著自制令全球刮目;相形之下,日本政府救災賑災慢三拍、搶救核災一再失效脫槌,讓人失望。政治當局主導國家資源的分配,決定公共事務的優先順序,占據社會議題的焦點;然一旦遇上災難,東京的政治中樞卻幾乎束手無策。這場災難,暴露了政府角色的失能,民眾也應重新思考如何馴服政治這頭權力怪獸。

近廿年日本國力衰退,與之平行的是政壇的縱橫捭闔、政治的動盪擾攘,兩者互為因果。其實,這次來勢猛烈的複合式災難,任何國家遇上了都必是手忙腳亂,但日本政府的表現卻更為離譜,且相當不透明。地方政府方面,救災安置尚稱秩序井然,但動態的物資運補及災後搶救則相對遲緩,讓災民同時遭受喪親及挨餓受凍之苦。以往受人讚譽的日本行政效率及鋼鐵般的公務員隊伍,似乎也生了鏽。

日本的景象像一面照妖鏡,也讓台灣看到自己的問題。若是面對日本那樣的大危機,我們能不能做得較好,這恐非朝野或任何人所能誇口。進一步看,我們當前的政治運作,目標都不是在幫助台灣作好準備,或在幫社會大眾解決問題,而只是在為政治人物自己鋪設舞台,並給對手製造難題。一有事故,政治人物的第一反應不是在怪罪別人,就是在為自己尋找卸責藉口,這皆非務實面對問題的態度。

三二○反核大遊行,就是赤裸裸的寫照。目睹日本輻射外洩危機,台灣確需重新思考此一議題,設法加強現有電廠的安全管理及危機因應,甚至思考核能的替代方案,這應是遊行的宗旨。但這場環保團體發起的活動中,卻是平日對此不聞不問的綠營政治人物走在隊伍前端,霸占了發言舞台,將遊行篡竊為自己的造勢大拜拜;環保人士則被擠到隊伍尾巴,貢寮鄉民更從頭到尾乏人聞問。政治操弄到這般地步,真是何其厚顏!

民進黨高唱反核廿年,它執政時下令核四停工,旋又宣布重新開工;如今在野,再回頭吶喊反核。如此反反覆覆,徒使核四興建經費暴漲、時程不斷拉長、變數增多,更平添未來的安全疑慮。更可議的是,它從未設法從專業層面去加強核安的監督與管理,卻始終霸著反核的舞台不放。這種機會主義作風,如何保證核能的安全無虞?

反核只是一例,台灣每天的政治議程上充滿著這類沒有真誠關懷的空包彈,當然也就無法命中什麼真實的目標。由於缺乏關懷與專業,所以得用疾言厲色來包裝,甚至藉助道具和煽情演出來爭取曝光。諸如議員強要將火把帶進議場,立委提議為日本降半旗,要求台電提出五十死士名單,拿他人父親骨灰罈上的刻字做文章,哪一項有助於國計民生?哪一項是真誠、負責、有料的問政?

台灣政治陷於空轉已十餘年,從先前多黨並起到如今兩黨爭衡,朝野的心力幾皆耗在選舉動員、爭奪權力,而不是在建設國家。大家看到的現象是:一,作秀式的質詢充斥,磨損了官員心力和專業見解,卻無法提供解決方案;二,對於實際存在的現象,屢屢用意識形態來扭曲其本質,導致問題完全無法聚焦;三,民粹式的問政風氣,徒讓逞口舌、走極端的政客崛起,不願隨波逐流的人反遭淘汰。台灣政治人物所製造的問題,遠比他們解決的問題多太多。

在太平歲月,表演式民主政治或許尚容揮霍,但一碰到危機,真相馬上現形。日本的三合一災難,要不是有那麼多自持的民眾在支撐社會秩序,要不是有那麼多捨命勇士在核電廠搶救,光靠東京那些高談闊論的政治人物,這個國家不知將淪於何地。這正是這場災難帶給台灣民眾最大的啟示:碰到災難,政治表演其實一點用處都沒有;要讓國家具有因應危機的能力,朝野必須改變虛問虛答的問政風格,民眾要用選票淘汰那些只會膨風的政客。

許多人正搶著要當總統、爭大位,他們可曾想過:在需要擔起千鈞重擔的一刻,自己究竟有幾分準備?

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky

The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2011

Yesterday Su Tseng-chang declared his candidacy in the Democratic Progressive Party presidential primary. On Sunday he revealed the first plank in his campaign platform. He joined the anti-nuclear march, and endorsed the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three, and a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four.

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the DPP -- its inconsistency and constant waffling. It opposes nuclear power generation. But during its eight years in power, it first halted, then resumed construction on Nuclear Plant Four. The premier at the time was Su Tseng-chang. The vice premier at the time was Tsai Ing-wen. At the time, Su never gave a second thought to halting construction. Yet now he is calling for the total abolition of nuclear power generation. By the same token, during the DPP's eight years in power, it championed the Five Noes, it upheld the Republic of China, It put on a good show, swearing allegiance up and down. On the other hand, it championed the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." It blanked out Chen Shui-bian's reluctant admission that "if it can't be done, it can't be done." Yet now the "one nation on each side connection" has become an influential faction within the party, a tail that wags the dog.

A nuclear-free homeland is of course a desirable goal. But the DPP was in power for eight years. Why did it do nothing to establish a non-nuclear homeland? Nor is Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation inconceivable. Why did the DPP do nothing during its eight years in power, other than engage in self-deception and deception of others?

All three DPP presidential hopefuls have the temerity to prattle on about "the future." Annette Lu, who withdrew at the moment of truth, boasted of a "grand future for Taiwan and the world." Tsai Ing-wen proclaimed that "I have heard the voice of Taiwan: It calls to the new generation, and urges them to seize the future." Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, spoke of "facing the future, with our feet on the ground." But the DPP was in power for eight years. Did it not promise to seize the future back then? Yesterday's future has become today's past. The DPP's non-nuclear future never came to pass. Its dream of Taiwan independence lies in ruins. The stench of DPP corruption assaults our nostrils. Yet it is now demanding another chance, a chance to lead us toward some sort of "grand future." What sort of bizarre political experiment does it intend to inflict upon us this time around?

This is perhaps the DPP's most important trait. The DPP ignores the past. How did it manage to leave such a mess after eight years in office? The DPP ignores the present, Does it recognize the 1992 Consensus? Does it intend to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy?" The DPP recognizes only "the future." Two thousand years ago, the "Li Yun Datong" made far more spectacular promises than the DPP. We hardly need Su and Tsai to paint us a "grand future" pie in the sky.

Su and Tsai both talk of the future. But is there really any difference between the futures they promise? Each boasts that his or her future is better than the other's. But might not they announce a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket in the blink of an eye? Might not they call for "unity," in order to divvy up the power and the loot? In fact, if we look at the declarations they made during the party primary, it is hard to see any real difference between the futures they promised. Tsai boasts about ushering in a "new generation," but merely to underscore her relative youth. Su boasts of "transcendence," but merely to underscore his seniority, and how well he has kept up with the times. But if we examine the two candidates' rhetoric more closely, what do we find besides empty talk? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from past DPP rhetoric? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from each other? The two candidates are afraid to face up to the DPP's past. All they can do is reflexively criticize the status quo, Can they really lead the DPP and the ROC to any sort of future by this alone?

Tsai and Su made ringing proclamations about the future during the party primary. They even did so during their introductions. Tsai addressed young students. Su responded to questions from college girls. Both invoked Yang Shu-chung, sitting on the ground weeping during the Guangzhou Asian Games. Both dodged questions about cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen failed to utter a single word about Mainland policy. Su Tseng-chang argued against the introduction of "novelty and oddity" in cross-Strait matters." Both candidates denounced the Ma administration's three year term as devoid of merit. But neither drew any honest comparisons with the DPP's eight years in office. The two candidates rhapsodized about a Brave New World. But neither offered any clue as to how they would realize their Utopias.

Su and Tsai both need to answer for their eight years in office. They both need to offer comprehensive strategies for the nation's survival. They cannot merely fantasize about a rosy future. After all, the people have already experienced eight years of the future promised them by the DPP.

Annette Lu has pulled out of the race. She has ended her controversial political career. She had the good fortune to occupy a position in which she could have leveraged her political influence to maximum advantage. Alas, her personality quirks prevented her from fully exploiting her good fortune. She was Vice President of the Republic of China for eight years. As we look back at her years in office, we realize how absurd and terrifying politics can be, and we no longer know whether to laugh or to cry.

民進黨要有比畫大餅更高明的未來論述
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.23


蘇貞昌昨天宣布參加民進黨總統初選,周日他預先公布了他的第一個競選政見;他參加了反核遊行,為核一二三除役及停建核四背書。

民進黨的根本問題在此;出爾反爾,顛三倒四。反核,但主政八年,核四停建又復工;在蘇貞昌任行政院長及蔡英文任副院長期間,亦從未有停工之想,現在卻又主張全面廢核。同理,民進黨主政八年,一方面四不一沒有、捍衛中華民國,指天畫地,重誓連連;而另一方面正名制憲、入聯公投,又沒有一樣不是「做不到就是做不到」,但現在「一邊一國」竟又成了黨內舉足輕重的大派系。

非核家園當然令人嚮往,但曾經執政八年,民進黨為非核家園做了什麼事?獨立建國也不是不能想像,但民進黨執政八年又何以只是「自欺欺人」?

巧的是,民進黨三名有意參選總統者,居然異口同聲皆訴諸「未來」。臨陣退選的呂秀蓮標榜「世界台灣大未來」。蔡英文宣示「我聽見台灣的聲音:召喚新世代,把未來扛起來」,蘇貞昌則謂:「腳踏土地,迎向未來。」然而,民進黨在執政八年以前,豈不也是訴諸「未來」?但當時的「未來」,如今已成「過去」,民進黨非核未成,台獨破敗,貪汙腐臭,現在又要第二次將台灣帶向什麼樣的「大未來」?又要第二次給台灣什麼樣的政治實驗?

這或許是民進黨最重要的特徵。不談過去,執政八年怎麼搞成那樣悽慘?也不談現在,承不承認「九二共識」、「是否延續前朝兩岸政策」?卻只是奢言及空談「大未來」。若只談未來,二千年前的《禮運大同篇》比民進黨任何一人皆說得精彩,何勞蘇蔡二人競相為「大未來」畫大餅?

蘇蔡皆談未來,但二人的「未來」到底有何不同?會不會二人現在相互標榜自己的「未來」優於對方,轉眼又宣布「蔡蘇配」或「蘇蔡合」,為權力分贓而「團結」?其實,從蘇蔡二人的初選宣言,國人並看不出二人有何大不同;蔡標榜「新世代」,只是要襯托自己比蘇年輕;蘇強調「超越」,只是要凸顯自己資深又與時俱進。然而,探究二人的論述,除了空泛的詞藻,二人與過去的民進黨有何不同?現在的民進黨又與過去有何不同?二人之間又有什麼不同?二人皆不敢面對民進黨的過去,也皆只會八股地批判現狀,光憑這些就能將民進黨及台灣帶向怎樣的未來?

蔡蘇二人非但皆將初選宣言指向未來,連破題的引言也如出一轍;蔡帶出燈下學童,蘇則舉發問的大學女生。兩人皆提到楊淑君在廣州亞運坐地哭泣,而兩人亦皆對兩岸關係閃避不談;蔡英文無一字論及大陸政策,蘇貞昌則稱兩岸問題「不要標新立異」。兩人皆將馬政府的三年治理說得一無是處,卻未見忠實比較與民進黨八年執政的高下得失。兩人皆說得一口美麗的未來,但怎麼也聽不出來他們憑什麼實現那個烏托邦?

蘇蔡二人應將過去八年執政的結果交代清楚,並對現在的國家生存戰略提出總體的構想;不可只是買空賣空談未來,畢竟國人已經領教過民進黨執政八年那個「已成過去的未來」了!

呂秀蓮退選,為她爭議性的政治生涯添加一筆。她一直幸運地站在政治槓桿的最佳使力點,但她的人格素質與才器實在無法匹配她的幸運。從現今這個場景回顧中華民國曾有這麼一位在位八年的副總統,可知政治的荒謬可至恐怖的地步,令人啼笑皆非。

Monday, March 21, 2011

Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?

Are Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng Running for President?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 22, 2011

The earthquake in Japan disrupted Tsai Ing-wen's campaign schedule. On the morning of March 11, she ceremoniously declared her candidacy. By that afternoon however, her announcement was totally drowned out by news of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Tsai Ing-wen found herself buried beneath a landslide of news reports on the disaster of the century. Five days later, Tsai Ing-wen finally dug herself out from under the rubble. Who knew the very first election topic she would toss out, would be the funerary urn of President Ma's father Ma Ho-ling, and the headstone of her own father Tsai Chieh-sheng.

Tsai Ing-wen told reporters that her father's tombstone contained the inscription "Pingtung Feng Gang," whereas the funerary urn of President Ma's father contained the inscription, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification." Tsai Ing-wen said she was simply underscoring the difference between the headstone and funerary urn for the two fathers, and how these differences symbolized their differing allegiances.

Tsai Ing-wen has used this issue as the opening volley in her run for the presidency. We are both surprised and disappointed. How is this such demagoguery any different from previous DPP attacks on Ma Ying-jeou as a "poodle," as [afflicted with] "Hong Kong foot" (athlete's foot), and as "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl)? During the party primaries Tsai Ing-wen urged the nation to "Cease inciting confrontation and hatred," and to "Extricate Taiwan from the politics of mob passions, and lead it toward the politics of rational persuasion." Is this what Tsai Ing-wen considers rational persuasion?

Tsai Ing-wen has compared Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn to Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. Does this qualify as "the politics of rational persuasion?" Are we to understand that Tsai Ing-wen's ringing declaration during the party primaries, has not held up for even five days? Tsai Ing-wen insisted that she was merely underscoring a "difference in allegiances." She insisted that she was merely pointing out the fact that Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone identified him as a native of Feng Gang, not Zhangzhou. In fact of course, Tsai Ing-wen was conducting another form of "rectification of names." In fact she was implying that the inscription on Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn, "defuse Taiwan independence, promote gradual reunification" prove that President Ma is descended from someone who "pandered to [Mainland] China, and sold out Taiwan."

This was the opening volley in Tsai Ing-wen's presidential campaign. The gunpowder she used was "rectification of names." The bullet she used was "ancestry." Tsai Ing-wen put her own spin on the Two Ying's confrontation. She not only compared Tsai Ing-wen with Ma Ying-jeou, she even compared Tsai Chieh-sheng with Ma Ho-ling.

The fact is, Ma Ho-ling's last wish, calling for the "defusing of Taiwan independence, and the promotion of gradual reunification," was merely his personal wish. President Ma has proposed "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force." That is national policy. By contrast, the inscription on Tsai Chieh-sheng's tombstone could read Zhangzhou. It could read Feng Gang. Either way, it too was merely his personal wish. It could have been inscribed with Yingchuan, Jinjiang, Longxi, or Quanzhou. None of this proves that anyone "did not love Taiwan." None of this supports Tsai Ing-wen's cross-Strait policy White Paper. In short, this is anything but the "politics of rational persuasion."

If Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen confront each other during the presidential election, they must compare their national policy proposals, and not the personal wishes expressed by Ma Ho-ling on his funerary urn, or Tsai Chieh-sheng on his headstone.

Tsai Ing-wen trumpets a "new generation." She aspires to the establishment of a "new political culture." But instead, she chose to demagogue funerary urns and headstones. If anything, her gesture is even more contemptible than taunting Ma Ying-jeou by calling him a "poodle," accusing him of "being afflicted with Hong Kong feet" (athletes foot), or referring to him as a "Ma Tong" (toilet bowl). That's because calling Ma Ying-jeou a "poodle" is directed only at Ma Ying-jeou as an individual. Demagoguing funerary urns, on the other hand, drags his ancestors into the picture.

Chen Shui-bian engaged in rampant corruption, and pocketed astronomical amounts of wealth. Yet Chen Chih-chung's "one nation on each side connection" is now an important faction within the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen has yet to issue a single word in condemnation of Chen Shui-bian and Chen Chih-chung's criminal complicity. Does she want President Ma to schlep his late father's funerary urn around with him, while she lugs her late father's headstone as they run for president? Does this qualify as the "politics of rational persuasion?"

It is true that allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and cross-Strait relations, are likely to be the focus during any upcoming presidential election debates. But the debate should not be about Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. The debate should be over concrete policy measures that have already been implemented. These include questions such as whether Tsai Ing-wen recognizes the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, ECFA, whether the OECD will continue functioning, whether fruit and milkfish will be sold, whether she agrees with "No [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force," whether she will continue direct flights, and whether she will continue the policies of the preceding administration. These questions have nothing to do with Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. They are however the questions that ought to be asked during any presidential election policy debate.

Over the past three years, President Ma's policy measures have been explicitly informed by his allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution, and his cross-Strait policy premises. Tsai Ing-wen is the one who has exceeded her brief. She is the one whose policy proposals are diametrically opposed to allegiance to the nation, allegiance to the constitution and the current administration's cross-Strait policy. Answers to these issues will not be found in Ma Ho-ling's funerary urn or Tsai Chieh-sheng's headstone. That is because Ma Ho-ling and Tsai Chieh-sheng are not running for president.

Tsai Ing-wen's opening volley was both a surprise and a disappointment. Her take on the matter was so off base, it underscored the vacuum at the heart of her political rhetoric. Her rhetoric is tough on the outside, but hollow on the inside. Tsai Ing-wen said "We must travel a different road." Apparently the road she wants us to travel is strewn with funerary urns and headstones. It is different indeed.

是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生競選總統嗎?
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.22

日本大地震,震亂了蔡英文的參選步調;她在三月十一日早上大陣仗宣布參選的新聞,當天下午就被日本的地震海嘯完全吞沒。

五天後,蔡英文勉力從世紀災變的新聞土石流中鑽出來,她丟出的第一個令人注意的選舉話題,竟然是馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈,及她自己父親蔡潔生的墓碑。

蔡英文在接受媒體專訪時說,她父親蔡潔生的墓碑上刻著「屏東楓港」,馬總統父親馬鶴凌的骨灰罈上卻刻著「化獨漸統」。蔡英文說,她只是簡單陳述兩人父親墓碑及骨灰罈的差異,以及此差異所象徵的認同差異。

蔡英文以這個話題作為她競選總統的第一槍,著實令人十分意外又失望;這與民進黨過去操弄的「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」與「馬統」有何不同?這難道就是蔡英文在初選宣言所說的「不要再召喚對立的仇恨」,「把台灣從過去激情嘶吼的政治,帶往一個理性說服的政治」?

拿馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑相提並論,算不算是「一個理性說服的政治」?蔡英文的初選宣言,難道禁不起五天的考驗?蔡英文說,這是要陳述一種「認同差異」,其意是指蔡潔生的墓碑上不刻祖籍漳州,而刻楓港,其實是一種「正名運動」;至於馬鶴凌骨灰上刻的「化獨漸統」,可以證明馬總統「傾中賣台」的血統。

這就是蔡英文參選總統的第一槍,火藥是「正名」,彈頭是「血統論」。蔡英文擺出的態勢儼然是:雙英交鋒,不但是蔡英文與馬英九比,甚至連蔡潔生也要與馬鶴凌比。

其實,馬鶴凌的遺願「化獨漸統」,只是表達了「個人思維」;馬總統所主張的「不統/不獨/不武」,才是「國家政策」。相對而言,蔡潔生的墓碑不論是刻著漳州或楓港,這也只是「個人思維」,既不能證明其他刻著穎川、晉江、隴西、泉州者就是「不愛台灣」,更不能作為蔡英文兩岸政策白皮書的任何支撐。總之,這完全不是「一個理性說服的政治」。

總統大選如果馬蔡對壘,要比的是馬英九與蔡英文的「國家政策」,而不是馬鶴凌的骨灰罈或蔡潔生的墓碑上刻了什麼「個人思維」。

蔡英文標榜「新世代」,宣稱要建立「新的政治文化」。但這種把骨灰罈與墓碑丟入戰火的動作,其實比「貴賓狗」、「香港腳」或「馬統」更低劣;因為,「貴賓狗」只是針對馬英九個人,骨灰罈卻是把人家祖宗也拖下水。

陳水扁巨貪惡腐,但陳致中的「一邊一國連線」儼然已是民進黨內舉足輕重的派系;蔡英文不對陳水扁與陳致中父子的共犯關係發一語,卻難道想叫馬總統捧著乃父的骨灰罈,與扛著亡父墓碑的自己競選總統?這又豈是「一個理性說服的政治」?

沒有錯,這次總統大選,國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸關係皆可能是辯論焦點;但辯論的支撐並不在馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑,而是須對已經上路運行的具體政策進行論證。蔡英文承不承認「九二共識,一中各表」,ECFA、經合會繼不繼續?水果虱目魚還賣不賣?「不統/不獨/不武」是否同意?還要不要直航?「前朝兩岸政策」是否應當延續?這些皆與馬鶴凌的骨灰罈與蔡潔生的墓碑無關,卻是總統大選應當辯論的國家政策。

近三年來,馬總統的國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策皆已明明白白地實際運作;蔡英文欲超越馬英九,即應在國家認同、憲法認同及兩岸政策上提出針鋒相對的主張。這些,皆不可能從馬鶴凌及蔡潔生的墓碑上找到答案,因為不是馬鶴凌與蔡潔生在競選總統。

蔡英文的第一槍令人意外又失望;走這種偏鋒,只是徒顯其空洞無物、色厲內荏。蔡英文說,「我們要走一條不一樣的路」,在這條路的入口處竟就擺著骨灰罈、豎著墓碑,果然很不一樣。

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Reading the Tsai/Su Script

Reading the Tsai/Su Script
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 21, 2011

In March last year, Su Tseng-chang announced his candidacy for Mayor of Taipei. This forced Tsai Ing-wen, in accordance with her own Two Cities script, to run for Mayor of Xinbei City. Today Tsai Ing-wen has seized the inititative and announced her candidacy for president in 2012. This has forced Su Tseng-chang to play by her script.

Rumor has it Tsai Ing-wen's script called for "the winner to run for president, and the loser to run for the legislature." Tsai and Su would compete in the primaries. Whoever lost would be put at the top of the party roster for legislator without portfolio. He or she would then head up the party's bid for an absolute majority in the legislature. When the news broke, Tsai Ing-wen admitted that some aspects of this proposal had been floated before, but that they were absolutely not Tsai's idea. The suggestion that it was however, is not far-fetched.

The DPP leadership abruptly said it "had no particular objection" to consolidating the presidential and legislative elections, confirming that such a script existed. Consider the matter from Tsai Ing-wen's perspective. The winner of the party primaries runs for president. The loser runs for the legislature. This allows her to avoid being made one half of either a Tsai/Su ticket or a Su/Tsai ticket. If Tsai wins the primaries, she can refuse to be part of a Tsai/Su ticket. On the other hand, If Su wins, Tsai can refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. Furthermore, if the presidential and legislative elections are merged, a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket would force the two to run together, on the same ticket. Such a coordinated attack would result in a multiplier effect. But suppose the legislative elections are held first, and the presidential election is held later? The result of coopetition between Tsai and Su or Su and Tsai could be unpredictable. The Tsai Ing-wen camp probably believes it can win the primary. That is why it cooked up this particular script; In other words, it wanted to force Su Tseng-chang to run for the legislature. This would block the straightjacket of a Tsai/Su ticket. If the presidential election and legislative elections are merged, Su Tseng-chang will be unable to make trouble. He will be forced to throw his support behind Tsai Ing-wen. Furthermore, suppose the presidential election and legislative elections are held separately? Suppose , the results of the legislative elections are not as favorable as the DPP hoped for? This could undermine the momentum of the DPP's presidential campaign. But if the presidential election and the legislative elections are held on the same day, and the results announced on the same day, then this will not be a concern. Therefore "the winner runs for president, and the loser runs for the legislature" and merging the presidential election with the legislative elections has now become the DPP's strategy..

What Su Tseng-chang finds hardest to swallow, is reports that DPP leaders believe President Ma Ying-jeou may be reelected. Such reports say that if Tsai Ing-wen feels confident of victory during the current presidential election, the DPP will nominate her. Conversely, if Tsai Ing-wen does not feel confident, the party will nominate Su Tseng-chang. This would avoid undermining Tsai Ing-wen's momentum, and maximize her chances of winning in the 2016 election. Confronted by such sentiments within the party, Su Tseng-chang must be deeply disgruntled.

Tsai and Su differ primarily in their age. Tsai can run in 2012. She can also run in 2016. But 2012 will probably be Su Tseng-chang's last hurrah. Tsai Ing-wen is competing with Su Tseng-chang in the presidential primaries. Not only that, if she loses the party primaries, she will refuse to be part of a Su/Tsai ticket. This has left Su Tseng-chang no room to maneuver. The party sees Tsai Ing-wen as the frontrunner. It has tilted in her direction. Tsai Ing-wen is also far more popular than Su Tseng-chang. Now consider the matter from Su Tseng-chang's perspective, Tsai Ing-wen is a Johnny Come Lately to the DPP. She has offered little besides empty rhetoric, She has failed to set forth any "outside the box" political concepts or policy proposals. Yet based on this, she is calling for a "new generation" to elbow aside the "old generation." How must Su Tseng-chang feel about that?

Tsai Ing-wen said she is not political enough. She does not know how to make political calculations. But she seized the initiative, and declared her candidacy. She promoted the idea that "the winner should run for president, the loser should run for the legislature." She also promoted the idea that the DPP "has no particular objection to merging the presidential and legislative elections." She precisely calculated the impact of Tsai/Su coopetition. She didn't miss a trick. Tsai Ing-wen clearly does know how to make political calculations. Su Tseng-chang is hoping for a Su/Tsai ticket, or failing that, a Tsai/Su ticket. But Tsai has only one goal, to run for president. She does not want a Su/Tsai ticket. She wants to rid herself of a Tsai/Su ticket. She apparently believes that Tsai can do without Su, but Su cannot do without Tsai.

For Tsai Ing-wen, such political calculations have all been calmly and rationally mapped out. Leave aside Su Tseng-chang's personal interests and preferences. Is not "the winner runs for president, the loser runs for the legislature" the fairest and most synergetic strategy? Moreover, if Tsai wants to run for president, she must rid herself of Su Tseng-chang or Annette Lu. She must also rid herself of the fetters attached to her by the Old Guard within the Green Camp.

We said that Tsai Ing-wen's "three in one goal" includes generational power transfer, waging a presidential campaign, and transforming the party's political platform. Among these, the key is generational change. Su Tseng-chang and Annette Lu were her targets during the party primaries. Furthermore, suppose she is elected and takes office. Suppose she fails to promote Green Camp generational change, and transform the party's political platform. She will find herself walking down the same path as Chen Shui-bian. She will "win the election, but lose her ideals."

蘇貞昌如何看蔡英文的劇本
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.21

蘇貞昌去年三月在保安宮宣布參選台北市長,逼蔡英文照著他「雙城奇謀」的劇本參選新北市長;如今,蔡英文率先宣布參選二○一二總統,又回過頭來迫蘇貞昌照著她的劇本演出。

傳說蔡英文方面的劇本是「贏的選總統,輸的拚國會」,亦即:蔡蘇二人在初選落敗者,擔任不分區立委第一名,率黨籍立委候選人拚國會過半。消息傳出後,蔡英文方面說有人曾提此議,卻非蔡英文自己的主張。不過,這不像是空穴來風。

民進黨中央突然表態「不會特別反對」總統、立委合併選舉,可以證實這套劇本確實存在。站在蔡英文方面設想,初選贏的選總統,輸的拚國會,即可跳出「蔡蘇配/蘇蔡配」的框架。初選蔡若贏,即可不要「蔡蘇配」;蘇若贏,蔡亦可拒絕「蘇蔡配」。再者,總統、立委若合併選舉,蔡蘇或蘇蔡二人被合併選舉的大局綁住,應可產生分進合擊的乘數效應;但若先選立委、後選總統,蔡蘇或蘇蔡的競合關係即可能出現難測的變數。何況,蔡英文方面應是估計蔡有可能贏得初選而構想出這一套劇本;也就是說,屆時可把蘇貞昌推到不分區立委,堵住「蔡蘇配」的「膏膏纏」;又以總統立委合併選舉,不讓蘇貞昌有作亂的空間,而不得不為蔡英文抬轎。再者,總統、立委分開選舉,民進黨若選得不如預期,可能影響總統大選的聲勢;總統立委同日選舉,同日揭曉,即不會有此顧慮。所以,「贏的選總統,輸的拚國會」與「總統立委合併選舉」,是兼籌並顧的算計。

最令蘇貞昌吃不消的是,又有消息指出,民進黨中有人估計馬英九總統仍有連任可能,則如果蔡英文此屆總統選舉有勝選的把握,民進黨就推舉她參選;反之,倘若蔡英文無勝選把握,就推舉蘇貞昌,以避免傷害蔡英文,為她保全二○一六的機會。蘇貞昌面對這樣的黨內氛圍,心中必是五味雜陳。

蔡蘇二人的對比關鍵在年齡。蔡可以選二○一二,也可以選二○一六;但二○一二應是蘇的人生最後一戰。蔡英文非但要與蘇貞昌爭總統初選,如今甚至表明若初選落敗也拒絕「蘇蔡配」,這不啻已使蘇貞昌失去轉圜空間。如今,黨內皆將蔡英文視為「西瓜的大邊」,且蔡在民間的聲勢亦有壓倒蘇貞昌的跡象;但是,看在蘇貞昌眼裡,蔡英文畢竟是民進黨的一個「遲到的黨員」,且她除了空泛的詞藻堆砌外,也未能提出什麼「超越」的主張或政見,憑這樣就要召喚「新世代」,推開「舊世代」,此對蘇貞昌而言真是情何以堪?

蔡英文說,她不夠政治,不會算計;但她先聲奪人、宣布參選,並傳出「贏的選總統,輸的拚國會」的劇本,再放出「不特別反對總統立委併選」的聲音,不啻是將「蔡蘇競合」的政治算計已算到毫釐分明、滴水不漏的地步。蔡英文算得很清楚:蘇貞昌希望「蘇蔡配」,至少要「蔡蘇配」;但她只有參選總統一個目標,不要「蘇蔡配」,也要甩掉「蔡蘇配」。她顯然認為,蔡可以不要蘇,蘇不能沒有蔡。

這一切的政治算計,對蔡英文來說,皆是理性而冷靜的擘劃。試問:撇開蘇貞昌個人的利害愛憎而言,「贏的選總統,輸的拚國會」,難道不是最公平且最具綜效的大戰略?何況,蔡英文若想當選總統,不僅要甩掉蘇貞昌或呂秀蓮,也須在執政後甩掉其他綠營老舊勢力的羈絆。

我們曾說,蔡英文面對的「三合一工程」是:世代交替、總統大選、路線轉型。其中,世代交替更是關鍵工程,蘇貞昌、呂秀蓮是她初選中的箭靶;進一步說,她若有朝一日當選而執政,倘不能進一步對綠營「世代交替」,以達成「路線轉型」,她也必將步上陳水扁「贏了選舉,輸了路線」的後塵。

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Japan's Nuclear Apocalypse

Japan's Nuclear Apocalypse
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2011

A powerful earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter Scale triggered an explosion and radiation leakage at a Japanese nuclear power plant. Nations the world over are in a panic. The European Union described the huge nuclear disaster in Japan as an "apocalypse." It said Tokyo authorities have already lost control. Foreign reports call the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident one of the three worst nuclear power plant accidents in history. It is already considered more serious than the U.S. nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. If the situation deteriorates even further, it may be considered even more serious than the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl.

Officials are attempting to allay public fears. Over the past several days, officials from the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council have repeatedly assured the public that the impact of the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident on Taiwan will be limited. But this is not the reaction of governments the world over. On the 16th, during a U.S. Congressional hearing, Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that the pool of water for storing spent fuel rods at the Number Four Reactor in the Fukushima nuclear power plant had already dried up, He said the situation was more serious than Japanese officials are willing to say. The U.S. has proposed the withdrawal of its citizens from a wider area around the Fukushima nuclear power plant than Japan has suggested.

Yukiya Amano is the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a watchdog agency for the United Nations. Amano said he is prepared to go to Japan and obtain first-hand information. Amano considers developments at the Fukushima nuclear power plant "very serious." But he says it is too early to characterize the situation as "out of control."

The European Union uses nuclear power generation more than any other region of the world. It is concerned about the fallout from this incident. One-third of the electricity used by the EU comes from nuclear power generation. It accounts for 15% of its total energy use. According to European Nuclear Society (ENS) statistics, Europe has a total of 195 nuclear reactors in operation. Of these, 143 are in EU countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have agreed to include nuclear safety on the agenda at the G20 Summit, to be held in France at the end of March.

Despite intense reactions from these advanced nations, the Executive Yuan Atomic Energy Council remains firm. It has made a number of calculations based on certain assumptions. It assumed that 10 units at the Fukushima plant leaked high dosages of radioactive material. It assumed the worst, that winds blew toward Taiwan. It assumed that the radioactive material was 13 times as serious as Chernobyl. It assumed that Taiwan was located downwind from Fukushima. It assumed that the radioactive material would take 120 hours to reach Taiwan and spread through the atmosphere. Based on these assumptions, it said that over two days, the cumulative dose of radiation per hour for the public on Taiwan would be 7.3 mSv, less than the baseline measurement of 10 mSv. Over seven days the accumulated radiation dose would be 25.5 mSv, less than the 50 to 100 mSv standard mandating evacuation. It would even be less than the 100 mSv standard mandating iodine tablets.

The Atomic Energy Council concluded its remarks. But yesterday, Japan's three largest airports tested returning travelers for radiation exposure. They tested over 4000 visitors. Among them, 26 were slightly exposed. They were treated and retested. None had any problems. Nevertheless, the results show that concerns about radioactivity are not groundless.

Reactions from nations the world over show that the Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation leak has become the world's most significant nuclear power plant disaster. Even the Japanese Ministry of Education admitted that approximately 20 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, it detected 330 mSv of radiation per hour. That is 6600 times the norm. Japan's technological standards and management capabilities are higher than those on Taiwan. When even nuclear power plants on Japan are subject to such accidents, how can nuclear power plants on Taiwan remain immune? The council's reassurances are clearly contrary to common sense. This is why the more the Atomic Energy Council urges everyone not to panic, the more the public considers the council's reassurances meaningless.

Radiative contamination is a risk management issue. Nature includes background radiation. We are exposed to radiation every time we are X-rayed. The public does not expect zero exposure to radiation. The problem is the manner in which the government has chosen to address the public. The result is inevitable. The speaker drones on, but the listener dismisses everything he has heard. Therefore, the most pressing issue in disaster prevention education is how to establish a society able to cope, through risk analysis and risk management.

Japan is a country which places a high value on risk management. A natural disaster struck, and led to a nuclear power plant radiation leak that shocked the world. The ROC government considers nuclear power a strategy to reduce carbon emissions and prevent global warming, Japan's earthquake experience tells us we must address the issues of nuclear power plant safety and radiation leakage. We must reexamine energy generation policy from the perspective of disaster management and security. We must adopt a professional perspective, weighing advantages against disadvantages. Disaster prevention and mitigation must include risk management measures. Information must be open and transparent. We must seek a public consensus. Only then can we allay public fears about the safety of nuclear power generation.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2011.03.18
日本核災「啟示錄」
本報訊

 一場規模九的大地震引發的日本核電廠爆炸輻射外洩事件,讓全世界各國一陣驚慌。歐盟以「啟示錄」(APOCALYPSE)般的大災變形容日本核電災難,指稱東京當局對福島核電事件幾已失去控制;外電亦稱日本福島核電廠事件是人類有史以來最嚴重的三大核能事故之一,其嚴重程度已超越美國三浬島核事故,如果事態惡化,也可能更甚俄國的車諾比核災事故。

 為了安撫民心,這幾天行政院原子能委員會官員一再對外說:日本福島核電廠事件對台灣,不會影響或是影響有限;反觀世界各國的反應卻非如此:美國核子管理委員會 (NRC)主委亞茲柯十六日在美國國會聽證會上表示,福島核電廠四號反應爐廢燃料棒儲存池的水已經乾涸,災情比日本官方說法嚴重,而美方建議福島核電廠附近美僑撤離範圍比日方宣布範圍廣。

 聯合國核子監督機構「國際原子能總署」(IAEA)署長天野之彌則表示,他準備前往日本,掌握第一手資訊。天野之彌認為,日本福島核電廠的情勢發展「非常嚴重」,但還不是斷言「失控」的時候。

 全世界使用核能發電最多的歐盟更關心此一事件後續發展。目前歐盟所使用的電力,三分之一來自核能發電,占能源使用總量的十五%。根據「歐洲核能學會」(ENS)統計,目前歐洲共有一九五座運作中的核子反應爐,其中一四三座位於歐盟國家內。德國總理梅克爾和法國總統薩科奇並已同意,共同推動把核能安全列入三月底於法國舉行的廿大工業國(G二十)領袖峰會議程。

 儘管先進國家反應激烈,但行政院原子能委員會說,經過模式計算,假設日本福島電廠十座機組全都外洩高劑量的放射性物質,且風向吹向台灣的最壞情況下,估計輻射汙染值為車諾比事件的十三倍,而台灣位在福島下風處、由日本飄到台灣的時間約為一百二十小時,再藉由大氣擴散,得出台灣民眾兩天內的輻射累積劑量將為每小時七.三毫西弗,不到十毫西弗的掩蔽措施基準;而七天的輻射累積劑量為二五.五毫西弗,也不到五十至一百毫西弗的疏散標準,更不到一百毫西弗需要服用碘片的情況。

 原能會話才剛說完,昨天國內三大機場針對日本返國旅客輻射檢測,受檢的四千多名旅客中,就有二十六人受輕微汙染,雖然經過處理後,再次量測,都沒有問題。但此一檢測結果,說明了輻射外洩顯非空穴來風。

 從外電與世界各國的訊息顯示,福島核電廠輻射外洩事件已經是全球重大核電廠災變事件,即使是日本文部科學省亦不得不承認,在福島核電廠西北方約廿公里處,偵測到最高每小時三三○毫西弗輻射量,是平常值的六千六百倍。日本的科技水平與管理能力都遠較台灣高出許多,如果連日本的核電廠都會出事,卻要國人接受台灣核電廠不會出事的說法,顯然有違一般民眾認知。這也是為何行政院原子能委員會愈強調不用恐慌,但一般民眾卻愈無法接受。

 輻射汙染問題是一個風險管理的課題,自然背景中就有輻射,平常我們照X光也會接受到輻射汙染,但目前社會氛圍似乎是要求沒有輻射汙染,這樣的風險溝通,結果一定是言者諄諄,聽者藐藐,因此當前防災教育最迫切的課題就是如何透過風險分析與風險管理而建立一個風險社會。

 日本是最重視風險管理的國家之一,一場天災下來,還是發生了舉世震驚的核電廠輻射外洩事件。而當前的台灣政府亦考慮以核能發電做為達到減碳防止地球暖化的策略之一,從日本的地震經驗告訴我們,核電廠安全與輻射外洩問題是我們必須正視的課題,重新以災難管理及安全的角度檢視能源發電政策,先從專業角度分析各方利弊得失,應採取防災與減災的風險管理措施以及風險多寡,再將資訊完全公開透明,尋求全民共識,這樣才有可能化解民眾對核電安全的疑慮。

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Official Chest-thumping No Solution for Radiation Scare

Official Chest-thumping No Solution for Radiation Scare
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2011

Summary: The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased. When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.

Full Text below:

The Japanese government has announced that the level of radiation in the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Number One is too high. Therefore all plant personnel will be evacuated. This is tantamount to a declaration that the plant is being abandoned. This means that the disaster may worsen. The amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere has reportedly increased.

When the earthquake first occurred, officials in charge assured the public more than once that radioactive contaminants would not leak from the power plant. The power plant experienced a series of hydrogen gas explosions. But Japanese officials insisted that "hydrogen gas explosions are not nuclear explosions," therefore were no danger to public health. Only when the situation deteriorated, did they admit that radioactive materials had leaked. Only then did they enlarge the evacuation zone. The U.S. aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan withdrew to a position off the coast of Fukushima, highlighting the severity of the radiation leakage. Rescue helicopters flew through clouds to reach the affected areas. Upon their return, crew members and helicopter fuselages revealed clear signs of radiation exposure. The radiation leaks cannot be minimized.

Nuclear energy officials on Taiwan have remained tight-lipped about whether radioactive fallout would reach Taiwan. All they have been willing to say is that they probably will not, that the fallout will be diluted, that winds over Japan are currently blowing from the west, and that "They absolutely will not reach Taiwan." In short, they think there is virtually no risk. But the public remains skeptical of such official assurances. They have stopped buying oysters, scallops, Aomori apples, and Fukushima peaches from Miyagi Prefecture. They even have doubts about dairy products, which have yet to feel the impact on the food chain. Ordinary people who would normally visit the night markets on Taiwan, now prefer to avoid the radiation. For them "It is safer to stay at home." As a result, business has fallen roughly thirty percent.

This is not because the public entertains stereotypes about officials who thump their chests and offer loud assurances. It is because the hazards of radiation are cumulative, and increase geometrically. They accumulate in the body. They harm not just the current generation. Genetic mutations are passed on to the next generation as well. When confronting disaster, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. We cannot simply hope that winds will blow the contaminants out over the Pacific Ocean and dilute the fallout. Such assurances are little more than asking for Buddha's blessing.

In April of last year the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland erupted. Volcanic ash reached Asia and the Americas. That was because the volcanic ash reached the stratosphere. It was caught by jet streams and carried along. The smoke and dust discharged from Fukushima failed to reach such altitudes. Tropospheric transport is unstable. Officials are attempting to defuse public panic. They claim that "Currently the winds are from the west. The U.S. may need to be careful. But Taiwan is all right!" Such rhetoric reveals a lack of understanding. Wind direction is subject to abrupt changes in atmospheric pressure and altitude. Currently the winds over Japan's earthquake-stricken areas are no longer from the west.

The government is hoping for favorable winds. It has set up monitors at the three nuclear power plants on Taiwan, and at 50 other locations. It intends to monitor radiation doses and to post the results on the Internet, It will provide the public with real-time information. This is a progressive measure. It will enable the public to immediately grasp the situation regarding radiation pollution. We approve. But such measures are reactive. The choice of monitoring locations was subjective. They should have been studied in greater depth. Radioactive materials do not remain in the air. With rain, they enter the soil, water, plants, and the food chain. People eating fruits and vegetables, dairy products, meat, and fish may ingest radioactive materials. This is not something monitoring radiation doses in the atmosphere can guard against. Besides, suppose the radiation detected reaches dangerous levels? What are we suppose to do then? Besides evading and covering up problems, what has the government done?

People want to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But they must first witness the government take concrete actions. Consider the 1986 Japanese response to the release of radioactive material during the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. On April 26 the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred. First, the Japanese government confirmed that the disaster was serious, Then it established, for the very first time, a Disaster Prevention and Countermeasures Headquarters, directly answerable to the Prime Minister. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, universities, research institutions, scientific research institutions, the military, and NGOs were all mobilized. All of Japan, including land, sea, air, water, soil, and living organisms, were categorized and thoroughly monitored.

Monitoring continued for one month. It confirmed traces of radioactive contamination. Nuclear energy officials were joined by experts in public health, nuclear medicine, and environmental medicine. All participated in the survey, signed the investigation report, and adjourned the task force. Concrete and responsible action enabled the Japanese to believe in the government's findings.

International nuclear authorities have classified the Fukushima nuclear disaster as a Level Six "Serious Accident," second only to Chernobyl. This implies a serious leak of radioactive materials. This means that contingency plans must be initiated. The United Nations IAEA is planning an emergency meeting next week. It will discuss measures to combat the continuous increase of radioactive materials. It has adopted a cautious attitude regarding Japan's nuclear disaster. This contrasts sharply with our own government's smugly confident attitude. Premier Wu Den-yih put it well when he said we must not be overconfident in our predictions.

When it comes to fighting enemies, we must anticipate the worst, and prepare for the worst. This must be our basic attitude, When it comes to radioactive materials, the public naturally wants to believe the government's assurances that "Everything is fine!" But the government cannot merely thump its chest. If it does, it may soon find its back to the wall.

輻射恐慌不能只靠官員拍胸脯
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.17

日本政府宣布,由於福島第一核電廠的輻射量過高,一度將電廠人員全數撤離,形同宣告全面棄守。此一情勢顯示,災變可能更趨惡化,輻射塵外洩飄散的危機亦告升高。

震災發生之初,日相菅直人不止一次保證核電廠沒有輻射外洩之虞;即便電廠隨即接連氫爆,日本官員還是說「氫爆不是核爆」,不會危及民眾健康;直到事態惡化才承認確已輻射外洩,緊急擴大撤離範圍。美國航母雷根號撤離福島外海的行動更凸顯輻射外洩的嚴重性,僅是前往災區救援的直升機穿過雲層,回航後即在人員與機身都測出明顯輻射劑量,顯示輻射外洩不容輕忽。

我國主管原能的官員對輻射塵會否飄來台灣一直非常「鐵齒」,只是說應該不會、空氣會稀釋、現在日本吹西風、「根本就不會飄到台灣」云云,總之,幾乎不認為有任何風險存在。民眾對官員的說法將信將疑,自主反應則是不買災區宮城縣進口的生蠔、扇貝,青森的蘋果、福島桃子,連還沒循食物鏈反應到的乳製品也有疑慮;而台灣庶民常逛的夜市,也因為避輻射「待在家裡很安全」的宣導,生意急落了好幾成。

不是對官員的拍胸脯保證有「不相信」的成見,而是因輻射危害會累積加乘,不僅會在體內累積,且傷害不只這一代,而會因基因突變遺傳給下一代。因此,從「料災從寬/防災從嚴」的角度來看,若是光寄望災區的風往太平洋吹、空氣稀釋,這樣的保證,程度上不會超過祈求菩薩保佑。

沒錯,去年四月冰島艾雅法拉火山爆發,火山灰吹到亞洲、美洲,那是因為火山灰噴發已經到了平流層的高度,才能搭上噴射氣流穩定輸送,而福島爆炸噴發煙塵的高度卻極有限,對流層並沒有穩定輸送的氣流條件。但官員試圖化解民眾恐慌的說詞只是:「現在吹西風,美國可能得小心了,台灣沒事啦!」這種說詞可能是不理解風向會因大氣的壓力場、高度而有變化,日本災區目前的風向也不再是西風。

除了寄望風向,政府另個動作是在三個核電廠與五十個點設置監測儀,將監測到的輻射劑量公布在網站上,告訴民眾即時資訊。這是進階的作法,可以即時瞭解輻射汙染資訊,值得肯定,但畢竟仍是被動的、主觀選擇地點的讀取汙染數據,必須要再進一步做現地調查。輻射物質不僅在空中,會隨降水落入土壤、水體、植株、進入食物鏈循環……,民眾攝食蔬果、乳品、肉、魚都可能讓輻射汙染進入人體,這絕非僅監測空氣中的輻射劑量即足以防範。更何況,若是偵測到輻射劑量達危險值,我們該怎麼應對?除了掩蔽,還有積極的動作嗎?

民眾願意相信政府「安啦!」的保證,前提是必須看到政府的具體作為。一九八六年日本因應車諾比核災輻射汙染的具體作法可供參考。當年四月二十六日車諾比爆發核災,確認嚴重性後,日本在第一時間組成直屬總理的防災對策本部,包括原子動力省、通產省、農部、大學、科研單位、自衛隊、NGO……幾乎全面動員,把日本全境陸域、海域、空域、水體、土壤、生物……劃分責任區徹底監測。

持續一個月的監測,確認輻射汙染微量,除了核能官員,還由包括公衛、核子醫學、環境醫學等共同參與調查的學者共同簽署調查報告後,結束任務編組。這一具體、負責的動作,讓日本民眾相信政府的調查結果。

日本福島核災,國際核能界已認定危險應升高到僅次於車諾比災變的第六級「嚴重成災事故」的程度,意思是輻射物質嚴重外洩,應全面啟動應變計畫;聯合國原能總署也計畫下周緊急集會,商討持續升高的輻射汙染對策,對日本核災戒慎恐懼的態度,與我國官員的自信滿滿成強烈對比。還是吳敦義院長說得好:這時候,話不能說得太滿。

「料敵從寬、禦敵從嚴」是防災基本態度,對可能的輻射汙染,民眾當然希望政府「安啦!」說的是實話,但若只是靠拍胸脯而已,可能屆時連「禦敵」的空間都流失殆盡。