Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Wealth Gap in the USA: A Warning for the ROC

Wealth Gap in the USA: A Warning for the ROC
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 31, 2012


Summary: George Soros and Warren Buffett have persuaded hundreds of wealthy individuals to participate in a patriotic millionaires tax increase program. Hopefully tycoons and entrepreneurs on Taiwan will show similar boldness and responsibility. The wealthy should pay more in taxes. Corporations should pay employees more in salaries. They should immediately reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. They should provide additional fuel for tomorrow's economic recovery.

Full Text below:

The U.S. presidential election looms. Americans are about to go to the polls. The main reason the candidates election prospects remain in a state of flux is the economic situation. The economy has tanked. Trade and budget deficits have ballooned. The wealth gap has widened. These facts are highly detrimental to the election prospects of the incumbent. The most serious problem is the gap between the rich and the poor. The problem did not arise overnight. But its consequences have been tearing the United States apart, and will continue doing so into the future. This issue is far more important than who will inhabit the White House. As we hold a mirror up to the U.S., we see how similar the situation is on Taiwan. We have no choice but to be more vigilant.

The wealthiest one percent in the United States owns 40% of the nation's wealth. Over the past three decades, the incomes of the wealthiest one percent of Americans have doubled. The assets of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans have doubled. The income of the middle class on the other hand, has remained stagnant. The American Dream, with its emphasis on class mobility, in which everyone has the opportunity to succeed, has become a myth.

The United States has the most inequality of any nation on earth. People with insight, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have warned that if the government allows the gap between the rich and the poor to increase, America will become a divided society. It will resemble the economies of the Third World. The problem of unequal distribution of wealth will eventually lead to a reaction against the rich.

Inequality in America has been increasing for decades. The increase in inequality began with the Reagan administration, when it loosened controls on the financial sector. It originated with the decline of the progressive tax system. Reagan's successors continued along the same path. As a result, today's richest one percent pay only 15 percent in income taxes. Their average tax rate is far lower than for middle-income earners. Also, the capital gains tax rate is lower than the payroll tax rate. So-called capital gains are often windfall profits. In other words, the U.S. tax system helps the rich make more money. It hinders the middle and lower classes in their attempt to earn money.

When wealthy conglomerates make money, they scream that government regulations should be relaxed. But during a depression or recession, they call upon the government for relief. This is truly a case of "privatizing the profits while socializing the losses." It is the epitome of injustice.

Now consider Taiwan. In recent years, the gap between the rich and the poor has been widening. Widespread unemployment, including unpaid leave, involuntary part time employment is common. People on Taiwan have yet to join Occupy Wall Street type movements. The rich and the poor have yet to clash head on. But if the problem is not addressed today, we will regret it tomorrow.

Narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor is a problem with many facets. This article will not try to address them all. But we urge the government to reform the tax system. We urge businesses to increase salaries. Help yourself by helping others.

Taxes account for only 12 percent of the ROC's GDP. This is far lower than the United States and Europe. It is also lower than South Korea. The USA boasts that it is the showcase of capitalism. Yet its income tax to GDP ratio is higher than the ROC's, which pursues the Three Peoples Principles. Now consider the ROK. Its economic structure and development pattern is similar to the ROC's. Before 1995, the South Korean income tax to GDP ratio was lower than the ROC's. In 1996, the situation was reversed. The South Korean government imposed a higher income tax to GDP ratio. The world was impressed with its boldness. By contrast, the ROC government, with its low income tax to GDP ratio, seems indecisive, inadequate.

ROC tax rates are low and getting even lower. This may have something to do with frequent elections. Political parties compete for votes by promising tax cuts. The government fails to balance its powers and responsibilities with social justice. Quadrennial elections began in 1996. This matches the cycle of declines in tax ratios. It gets worse. Taxation of income has a redistributive effect. This effect should be greater than the effect of government wealth transfers. But in recent years, income redistribution on Taiwan has relied mostly on government transfer payments, rather than taxes. Under democracy, issuing money is easy, raising taxes is difficult.

The capital gains tax will not take effect until New Year's Day next year. Recently legislators proposed merging it into stock transaction taxes. Their pretext was the lackluster stock market and the downturn in the economy. But large numbers of families are unemployed. Anyone still able to invest in the stock market is among the lucky ones. The level of taxation is unrelated to prosperity and competitiveness. Consider the high tax rates in the Nordic countries. Their economies remain vital. The gap between the rich and the poor remains small. Addressing unemployment is more urgent and more essential than adjusting capital gains tax rates. After all, the capital gains tax has yet to be imposed. The Ministry of Finance has finally managed to get the capital gains tax passed. It must not be abandoned.

Business owners must take the long view. They must take the initiative to reduce profits and increase employee salaries. This will motivate staff productivity. It will also increase domestic demand. Many years ago U.S. auto magnate Henry Ford paid employees higher salaries to inspire them to work harder and enable them to buy Ford automobiles.

George Soros and Warren Buffett have persuaded hundreds of wealthy individuals to participate in a patriotic millionaires tax increase program. They said, “Our country has been good to us. It provided a foundation through which we could succeed. Now, we want to do our part to keep that foundation strong so that others can succeed as we have.” 

Hopefully tycoons and entrepreneurs on Taiwan will show similar boldness and responsibility. The wealthy should pay more in taxes. Corporations should pay employees more in salaries. They should immediately reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. They should provide additional fuel for tomorrow's economic recovery.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2012.10.31
社論-美國貧富對立帶給台灣的警惕與省思
本報訊

     美國大選即將投開票,經濟狀況仍是左右選局主因。景氣低迷、外貿預算雙赤字攀升、貧富差距擴大,都對現任政府極為不利。各項問題中尤以貧富對立,其原因冰凍三尺非一日之寒,其後果已撕裂美國的今日與未來。它的重要性可能遠超乎誰主白宮。借鏡美國的同時,我們發現台灣的近況相當神似,實在不能不多加警惕。

     美國最富百分之一人口,擁有全國百分之四十的財富。近三十年來,收入最高的百分之一美國人所得成長一倍;收入最高的百分之零點一美國人資產成長兩倍,而中產階級的收入則停滯不前。強調階級流動、人人都有機會的「美國夢」已經變成神話。

     美國已成先進國家中最不均者。有識之士如諾貝爾得主史提格里茲(Joseph Stiglitz),早就警告當局若任由貧富矛盾激化,美國將走向分裂社會,且與第三世界經濟體愈趨相似,貧富不均問題終將對富人造成反噬。

     美國不均度已經持續惡化幾十年。導致不均度上升的原因,大約可從雷根政府撤銷對金融部門的管制,以及賦稅系統累進幅度的下降為其濫觴。雷根的繼承者繼續走相同的路,以致於今天頂層百分之一富人,大概只繳所得的百分之十五,其平均稅率遠低於中等所得者。另外,目前資本利得稅竟比薪資稅率還低,所謂資本利得又常是投機獲取的利潤。換言之,美國的稅制偏袒用錢賺錢的富者,對於以勞力賺錢的中下階級則極不友善。

     最不合理的是,財團賺錢時大呼政府管制應該鬆綁,遇有蕭條不景氣時又呼籲政府紓困。真正是「把利潤私有化,把損失社會化」,不公不義莫此為甚。

     回頭檢視台灣,近年貧富差距拉大,廣義失業狀況(含無薪假、非志願性半職等)嚴峻,都是絕無僅有的。台灣社會雖沒出現「占領華爾街運動」,貧富族群也尚未尖銳對立,但是今天如不積極解決,明天就會後悔。

     縮小貧富差距之道,經緯萬端,本文無法盡述。我們最急於呼籲政府的是,堅持稅制改革,為所當為;最急於呼籲企業的是,調高員工薪資,利人利己。

     台灣稅收占GDP比率只有百分之十二左右,不但遠低於歐美國家,也低於南韓。號稱資本主義櫥窗的美國,其稅收占GDP比率從頭至尾都高於「奉行三民主義」的台灣。再看經濟結構、發展方式與台灣極度相似的韓國。一九九五年之前,韓國稅收占GDP的比率都低於台灣。但是一九九六年之後,情況完全相反。稅收比率較高的韓國政府,令世人留有勇於任事的印象;稅收比率偏低的台灣政府,似乎瞻前顧後,左支右絀。

     台灣的稅收比率偏低且每況愈下,可能與選舉頻繁有關。政黨為爭選票,競相減稅,置政府權責與公義分配於不顧。一九九六年起每四年一次的大選,似乎影射著稅收比率下滑的節奏。尤有甚者,稅收的所得重分配效果照說應該高於政府移轉支出之效果。但是近年來台灣的所得重分配,大多仰賴政府移轉支出,而不是稅收。蓋因民主政治之下,發錢容易,收稅難。

     明年元旦才要上路的證所稅,近日就被部分立委提案,企圖併入證交稅。股市冷、不景氣是提案者的藉口。相對於大量失業家庭,能夠投資股市者實在是幸運兒。稅率的高低實在與景氣、競爭力無關。請看高稅率的北歐國家,經濟既有活力,貧富差距又小。如何解決失業的急迫性與正當性,遠高於調動尚未上路的證所稅。財政部好不容易才通過上路的證所稅,絕對不該棄守。

     企業主如果願意以長遠眼光,主動減少利潤,為員工加薪,不僅可激勵員工生產力,更可增加全體內需。當年美國汽車大王亨利福特給員工加薪,就是要他們認真工作並且買得起福特汽車。

     包括索羅斯和巴菲特,已有數百人聯名發起百萬富豪愛國增稅方案。他們說「美國善待我們,提供一個讓我們成功的基礎。現在我們要回饋,使這個基礎更堅實,也讓別人可以像我們一樣成功」。

     但願台灣的富豪和企業家,也有這份氣魄與擔當。富者加稅,企業為員工加薪,立刻縮減貧富差距,也為明天的經濟復甦添加柴火。

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Storm-Tossed U.S. Presidential Race

A Storm-Tossed U.S. Presidential Race
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 30, 2012


Summary: An October Surprise has finally debuted, just before the end of the month. But it is neither a war, nor a scandal. Instead, it is a hurricane -- Hurricane Sandy -- headed directly toward the South, the Eastern seaboard, and parts of the Midwest, including several swing states that President Obama assumed were already in his pocket. It has added a wild card to an already tense election.

Full Text below:

An October Surprise has finally debuted, just before the end of the month. But it is neither a war, nor a scandal. Instead, it is a hurricane -- Hurricane Sandy -- headed directly toward the South, the Eastern seaboard, and parts of the Midwest, including several swing states that President Obama assumed were already in his pocket. It has added a wild card to an already tense election.

During an election year, most voters in the United States are concerned about economic issues. The Obama administration has yet to emerge from the 2008 global financial tsunami. The unemployment rate has reached 7.8%, and has become the biggest obstacle to Obama's re-election. Ever since the war, whenever the unemployment rate exceeded 7.5% during an election year, the incumbent has lost his bid for re-election. Over 23 million people cannot find jobs. Over 10 million people rely on food stamps to get by. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has invoked the same slogan as President Reagan. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Naturally this is striking a chord.

The voters have given Obama a chance. Four years ago, he chanted, "Change. Yes, we can!" He stirred peoples' hearts. He became the first ever black president of the United States. But Obama failed to display the same leadership and charisma shown by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. Nor could he convince the Republican-led Congress to support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the way President Bill Clinton did. The bad blood between Obama and the House of Representatives prevented him from winning over members of Congress. Therefore his economic policies, financial reforms, and education reforms all stalled in Congress.

But he has an even bigger problem. Even if Obama wins re-election, he must once again face a Republican-led House of Representatives. This means four years of battles between the White House and the House of Representatives. History will probably repeat itself. Liberal newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times have endorsed Obama on issues ranging from tax reform, health insurance policy, diplomacy, and immigration laws. But they neglected to remind readers that Obama faces the same dilemma on Capitol Hill after re-election.

Some say the 2012 U.S. presidential election is a contest between a spokesman for the middle-class, and a corporate CEO. Obama comes from a modest background, but he has made it to the top of the heap. He is able to interact with voters. His election meant that even a black man can pursue the American Dream. His "Forward" slogan is not as resonant as it was four years ago. But according to a Washington Post/ABC poll, he has the support of 60% of all women voters. He has the support of black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. He is still favored to win. More importantly, most polls show the Democratic Party in control of more electoral votes in the 11 swing states.

By contrast, Romney is an entrepreneur who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He is distant from the people. But the companies he took over either turned around or doubled their profits. Do American voters agree that the country is moving in the wrong direction and needs a course change? If they do, he still has a fighting chance. Polls show 60% of the white vote supporting Romney. But the situation in the 11 swing states is not optimistic.

Does that mean Obama is a shoo-in? Not necessarily. Even these numbers may not be enough. In fact, the closer we come to election day, the more conservative election analysts and pundits get. They are no longer willing to come right out and say who will win the election.

Also, if polls determined the winner, Obama and Romney would not have to keep spending so much on "AirLand Battle Strategy." The two have been engaging in an air war on the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, TV, and radio. They have also been engaging in a ground war, mobilizing volunteers to go door to door. The amount they have raised has exceeded two billion U.S. dollars.

Finally, and most importantly, these are swing states. These states have a record of swinging back and forth. States that have swung one way in the past, are likely to swing another way in the future.

American voters seldom pay much attention to foreign policy. But the rise of Mainland China has become inseparable from the U.S. economy. Therefore, whether Beijing is "playing by the rules" and whether the United States should label Mainland China a "currency manipulator" became a theme in the third debate. Beijing has responded in a low keyed manner. Through backdoor channels, it sent a message to the two candidates. It also sent a message through other governments with close economic and trade ties with Mainland China. As a result, Obama and Romney cooled their rhetoric during the third debate. The world breathed a sigh of relief. As we can see, Beijing's influence is definitely growing.

Now consider Taipei's perspective. It matters not whether Obama or Romney is elected president. Any new development in US-China relations is likely to pose a major challenge to the Ma Ying-jeou government. ROC Representative to the US King Pu-tsung, National Security Council Secretary General Yuan Chien-sheng, and Secretary General of the Office of the President Timothy Yang, stand on the front lines. They and others must work together. They must ensure that the "iron triangle" President Ma proposed remains intact over the coming years.

在颶風中搖擺的美國大選
    2012-10-30
    中國時報

 「十月驚奇」終於趕在這個月底報到,但是既非戰爭,也非醜聞,而是颶風「珊迪」直撲美南、美東甚至部分中西部、包括許多歐巴馬總統視為囊中物的搖擺州,為已經緊繃的選情平添新的變數。

 毫無疑問,在大選年,美國絕大多數選民最在意的還是經濟議題。歐巴馬政府顯然尚未安度二○○八年爆發的全球金融海嘯,高達七.八%的高失業率成為歐巴馬尋求連任之路的最大擋路石。戰後以來,只要大選年失業率超過七.五%,沒有一位有意連任的總統能夠圓夢。在二三○○多萬人求職無門、一○○○多萬人靠食物券茍活的苦難時代,共和黨總統候選人羅姆尼提出當年雷根總統的同樣口號「你比四年前過得好嗎?」自能動人心弦。

 選民已經給了歐巴馬一次機會。四年前,他提出「改變。是的,我們能夠」曾經撼動人心,他也成了美國有史以來第一位黑人總統。然而歐巴馬既不是在古巴危機展現領導氣質與政治魅力的甘迺迪總統,也不是說服共和黨主導的國會支持「北美自由貿易協定」(NAFTA)的柯林頓總統。由於歐巴馬與眾議院之間的關係不佳,也欠缺說服國會議員及溝通的政治技巧,因此,他的經濟政策、金融改革與教育改革都遭到國會的杯葛。

 更大的問題是,即使歐巴馬連任成功,他仍要面對一個共和黨主導的眾議院,這意味著四年來白宮與眾議院之間的惡鬥恐將歷史重演。當自由派大報《華盛頓郵報》與《紐約時報》相繼在社論中,從稅改、健保政策、外交、新移民法各個角度為歐巴馬背書時,他們卻忘了提醒讀者,歐巴馬即將在改選後的國會山莊面對相同的困境。

 有人說,二○一二年美國總統選舉是中產階級代言人與CEO(執行長)之爭。的確,歐巴馬是一位出身不高卻力爭上游的成功者,而且能與選民互動並打成一片。他代表著即使是一位黑人也能追逐美國夢。儘管這次他提出「往前行」 (Forward)顯然沒有四年前的口號響亮,但是,根據《華盛頓郵報》與「美國廣播公司」(ABC)的民調,他擁有六○%女性選民的支持,在黑人、西裔、亞裔選民之間,他也擁有較大的勝算。更重要的是,十一個搖擺州的多數民調顯示,民主黨也掌控較多的選舉人票。

 另一方面,羅姆尼是一位含著金湯匙出生的企業家,而且也不夠親民。不過,凡是他主管過的公司行號,不是由虧轉盈,就是獲利倍增。這樣看來,只要美國選民認同他所提出「國家走向錯誤道路,現在需要新方向」的訴求,他也不是全無機會。只是,民調顯示,擁有六○%白人選民支持的羅姆尼,在十一個搖擺州選情不容樂觀。

 這樣看來,歐巴馬豈不是篤定當選了嗎?也未必。首先,光憑以上這些數字是不夠的。事實上,愈是接近投票日,選舉觀察家與名嘴就愈趨保守,再也不敢鐵口直斷誰能當選了。

 其次,如果民調決定勝負,歐巴馬與羅姆尼也不用繼續花大把銀子,進行「空陸一體戰」了。為了大打網路、臉書、推特、電視、廣播等「空中戰爭」,並動員支持者與義工挨家挨戶進行「地面戰鬥」,他們兩人的募款總和已經超過二○億美元。

 第三也是最重要的就是,既然是搖擺州,就意味著這些州曾有搖擺的記錄。凡是過去搖擺過的州,當然也很可能再度搖擺。

 儘管外交政策議題向來不受美國選民重視,惟由於中國崛起已變成和美國經濟密不可分的重要因素;因此,北京是否「按規矩辦事」(play by rules) 與美國是否應宣布中國大陸為「匯率操控國」仍是第三場辯論的主軸之一。不過,一則北京低調以對,並透過管道傳話兩位候選人,二則北京也透過與大陸有密切經貿往來的國家與媒體發揮影響力,歐巴馬與羅姆尼在第三場辯論都降溫自制,讓全世界都鬆了一口氣。由此觀之,北京的影響力的確與日俱增。

 對台灣來講,不論是歐巴馬或羅姆尼當選總統,美中關係任何新的發展都可能形成對馬英九政府的重大挑戰,有賴站在第一線的駐美代表金溥聰與國安會祕書長袁健生及總統府祕書長楊進添等人的通力合作,才能在今後數年確保馬總統提出的「鐵三角」安若磐石。

Monday, October 29, 2012

Civil Wars have No Heroes: Internal Conflict Prevents a Nation from Developing

Civil Wars have No Heroes:
Internal Conflict Prevents a Nation from Developing
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 27, 2012


Summary: Taiwan Retrocession Day was once a red letter day. One invoked deities, honored one's ancestors, held banquets, and received guests. The atmosphere was summed up in the verse, "wang shih guang fu tai wan re, jia ji wu wang gao nai ong." In other words, on such a day we must recall who recovered Taiwan; we must express gratitude to our elders. But since reunification vs. independence confrontations became the "norm," the importance of Taiwan Retrocession Day has been downplayed. This year this newspaper published a special edition discussing Taiwan Retrocesson Day. President Ma wrote a facebook post. Otherwise the public would have completely and utterly forgotten the special significance of October 25.

Full Text below:

Taiwan Retrocession Day was once a red letter day. One invoked deities, honored one's ancestors, held banquets, and received guests. The atmosphere was summed up in the verse, "wang shih guang fu tai wan re, jia ji wu wang gao nai ong." In other words, on such a day we must recall who recovered Taiwan; we must express gratitude to our elders. But since reunification vs. independence confrontations became the "norm," the importance of Taiwan Retrocession Day has been downplayed. This year this newspaper published a special edition discussing Taiwan Retrocesson Day. President Ma wrote a facebook post. Otherwise the public would have completely and utterly forgotten the special significance of October 25.

President Ma spoke in general terms about why Taiwanese have forgotten Taiwan Retrocession Day. He said it was because the Chinese Civil War never ended. President Ma "thanked the nation's men in arms for their sacrifice and dedication. Following Taiwan's retrocession they continued to defend Taiwan, build up Taiwan, and protect Taiwan. They enable us to live on Taiwan, to breath the air of freedom and democracy." What Mr. Ma said was correct as far as it went. But he deliberately avoided mentioning the full significance of the eight-year long War of Resistance against Japan, and the 50 year long struggle of Taiwan compatriots against Japanese colonial occupation.

When the Marco Polo Bridge Incident erupted, the Chinese people on the Mainland were being invaded, and their compatriots on Taiwan were enduring over four decades of Japanese colonial occupation. If the two groups still refused to resist the Japanese, the nation would perish, and they would become victims of genocide. Our forebears had powerful motives to resist the Japanese. It was not only to recover Taiwan. It was also to inspire a renaissance of the Chinese nation, and to ensure the survival of China's venerable culture. Resistance to Japanese colonialism was a shared reaction. It was all Chinese saying no to being abused by another people. Delinking Taiwan retrocession from China's modern history amounts to "contemplating the heavens from the bottom of a well." It also deludes later generations. During the Chiang Kai-shek era, the Black Cat and the Black Bat risked their lives to reunify and strengthen China. They were assuredly not, as today's propagandists would have us believe, concerned exclusively with defending Taiwan and sacrificing for Taiwan. They represented a tragic chapter in the Chinese Civil War. They were heroes who aspired to far more than just the defense of Taiwan.

Ma said, "The Diaoyutai Islands are liked Taiwan's children. In 1895 the Japanese invaded and abducted them. They were like newborn infants who were kidnapped soon after birth. Their names were forcibly changed. Japan's abduction of our flesh and blood has kept them apart from us for 50 years. Those stolen years cannot be reclaimed. For the moment the name remains changed. But the flesh and blood relationship remains an iron-clad fact, a fact of history that no one can change."

Diaoyutai and Taiwan are each others' flesh and blood. Yet they have been forcibly kept apart. But more than just Diaoyutai and Taiwan have been kept apart. Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have also been kept apart. Japan took Diaoyutai, an offshore island of Taiwan, from Taiwan. But Japan also took Taiwan, an offshore island of China, from China. President Ma spoke in generalities. He stressed only Diaoyutai's link to Taiwan. He refused to address Taiwan's link to the Mainland. This would never have happened before the advent of Taiwan independence.

We realize that in today's political climate, President Ma cannot spell out the situation too clearly. The two sides are still in an adversarial relationship. But this is why so many people on Taiwan are unwilling to negotiate a peace agreement with the Mainland based on the one China premise. This is why the de jure state of civil war cannot end. Many people on Taiwan still see the other side as the enemy, rather than as family. A divided sense of national allegiance, historical confusion, the Cold War, and the Chinese Civil War have all taken their toll. Mutual trust, mutual love, and a shared vision for the future have been lost.

Comb through history, and one will discover that many Taiwan independence advocates have prettified Japan's occupation of Taiwan. They were unhappy with early Kuomintang rule. They were subjected to years of anti-communist indoctrination. They witnessed the Communist Mainland's bungling during the Cultural Revolution. The desire of people on Taiwan for reunification has diminished greatly. But can we really throw the baby out with the bath water?

Famous Taiwanese writer Chen Ying-chen found himself in hot water as a result of his leftist ideology. He was imprisoned by a so-called "foreign regime" for seven years. He had good reason to hate the KMT. He had good reason to hate the Chinese Communist Party and Mainland China. He had good reason to champion Taiwan independence. Yet this victimized Taiwanese concluded instead that only Chinese reunification and progress could ameliorate the suffering of people on both sides of the Strait. When Chen was serving his sentence, foreigners came to his rescue. But Chen's father turned down their offers of help. He said the Chinese people's affairs should be handled by the Chinese people themselves. This father had extraordinary insight. When he visited his son in prison he said, "First you are a child of God. Then you are a child of China. Only then are you a child of mine."

Lin Shu-yang passed away a few days ago. He was imprisoned the longest of any political prisoner on Taiwan. This Taiwanese was ungrudgingly and unreservedly pro-reunification. His concern for the long-term growth of the nation, far exceeded any concern he had for his own suffering.

Consolidate national allegiance. Improve the political structure. Implement public policy. These are the Three Peoples Principles: National unity, civil rights, and the public weal. National allegiance is the foundation. Only when allegiance is consistent, can people share both the bitter and the sweet. Only on such a foundation can one construct a sound political structure. People speak of "ballots instead of bullets." But the necessary precondition is that people must perceive each other as members of the same nation, and as members of the same family. If their allegiances clash, if they are determined to fight to the death, how can democracy possibly flourish? Only within a sound political structure, can one hold rational discussions, and implement sound economic policy. Therefore one cannot shelve differences over national allegiance. They are even more pressing than issues of civil rights and the public weal.

China has endured a prolonged civil war. This has led alienation on both sides of the Strait. This has led to military confrontation as well as economic weakness. This has enabled the US and Japan to take advantage of our weakness. We must not repeat our folly. Only a return to the one China premise can restore reason to cross-Strait relations, and truly end the civil war. Only then can we end internal conflict. Only then can we live normal lives.

內戰沒有英雄 內耗無法發展
    2012-10-27
    中國時報

 早年台灣,光復節是迎神、祭祖、辦桌、宴客的大日子。「王師光復台灣日,家祭勿忘告乃翁」就是當時的氛圍與寫照。統獨對峙以來,光復節已被淡化。今年若非本報推出光復節座談特刊,以及馬總統寫了一篇臉書文章,台灣社會幾乎遺忘了十月廿五日的特殊意義。

 馬總統為何語氣籠統,台灣人為何遺忘光復節,都與中國的內戰沒結束有關。馬總統「感謝國軍弟兄的犧牲奉獻,在『光復台灣』之後,繼續『保衛台灣』、『建設台灣』」與『守護台灣』,讓我們能生活在台灣這塊土地上,呼吸民主、自由的空氣」。馬先生所言皆對,但他刻意躲閃了中華民族八年抗戰,與台灣同胞五十年抗日的完整意義。

 七七事變後,被日欺凌的中國人,以及被日統治四十餘年的台胞,若再不抗日,就要亡國滅種。先人先烈抗日的目的,不僅要光復台灣,還渴盼復興中華民族、延續中華文化。抗日是兩岸全體中華子民面對外族欺凌的奮力一擊。把台灣光復與中國近代史切割,不僅以管窺天,更誤導後代子孫。正如蔣介石時代,黑貓、黑蝙蝠中隊所以出生入死,為的是追求中國的統一與富強,絕非今日所宣傳的保衛台灣、偏安台灣。他們代表中國內戰悲劇的一章,不是保台的「英雄」。

 馬又說:「釣魚台列嶼這個『台灣囝仔』,它在一八九五年被日本侵略竊佔,有如出生不久就在襁褓中被人抱走、被迫改名的嬰兒;日本的竊佔,使得我們骨肉離散五十年…。被抱走的歲月喚不回,被改的名字猶在,但血脈相連的關係是鐵一般的事實,是任誰也無法改變的歷史印記。」

 血脈相連卻骨肉離散的,豈止是釣魚台和台灣而已,台灣與大陸亦是如此。被日本強擄的,豈止台灣旁邊釣魚台這個「台灣囝仔」而已,神州大陸旁邊台灣這個「中國囝仔」也是如此。但馬總統語帶籠統,只強調釣魚台與台灣的連結,卻不願觸及台灣與大陸連結,這情況在台獨興起前,是不可能發生的。

 我們理解今日台灣的環境,不容許馬總統把話講完全。因為兩岸還處在不正常的敵對關係。但這是因台灣不願在一中前提下與大陸談判和平協議,導致法理上的內戰狀態無法結束,台灣仍把對岸當敵人,而不是家人。台灣社會的互信互愛與發展遠景,就在國格分裂、歷史錯亂與「冷內戰」的折磨下,逐漸流失。

 梳理歷史脈絡之後,我們發現部分獨派民眾美化日本治台貢獻,反應的乃是對早期國民黨統治的不滿。復由於長期的反共教育,以及中共文革的不當,遂使台人求統意識大幅下降。但是倒洗澡水,怎能把嬰兒一起倒掉?

 著名台籍作家陳映真因思想左傾賈禍,被「外來政權」下獄七年。他有充分理由恨國民黨,連帶也恨中共與中國,進而鼓吹台獨。但這個受害的台灣人卻認定中國的統一與進步,才能免除兩岸人民的苦難。陳服刑期間,外國人士試圖救他,但被陳父婉拒。他說:中國人的事情,還是由中國人自己承擔。這位見識不凡的父親,探監時對兒子說:「首先你是上帝的孩子,其次你是中國的孩子,最後你才是我的孩子。」

 日前過世的林書揚,是台灣坐牢最久的政治犯。這個台灣人也是無怨無悔的統派,他對民族長期發展的關心,遠超過自己遭遇的苦難。

 凝聚國家認同、完善政治結構、妥行公共政策,就是三民主義中民族、民權、民生的精義。國家認同是最底層建設,認同一致的人,才能休戚與共。在這基礎上,才能建構完善的政治結構。所謂「以數人頭代替打破人頭」,必得先接受對方是同胞、是家人。若是認同歧異,巴不得你死我活,哪有民主發展空間?有了完善政治結構之後,才能理性討論、推行民生政策。如此說來,解決國家認同不但不該擱置,更是比民權、民生更優先的議題。

 中國長期內戰,已經造成兩岸情感的分離、軍事的對峙,以及經濟實力的互相抵銷,更讓美、日見縫插針,吾人何其不智。唯有回到一中立場,理順兩岸關係,全面終止內戰,我們才能停止內耗,也才能正常發展與生活。

Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Government Must Create a Friendlier Environment for Tourism

The Government Must Create a Friendlier Environment for Tourism
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 26, 2012


Summary: The global economy has experienced a downturn. Tourism revenue has eased the impact of Taiwan's diminished exports. Taiwan must improve its tourism environment. This will ensure long-term profitability. It will also promote Taiwan's attractions and values in the international community. This deserves our support. It is something government agencies should work harder to achieve.

Full text below:

Tourists from the Chinese mainland have flooded into Taiwan. This has led to a significant increase in tourism revenue in recent years. But recently word emerged of foreign tourists being charged astronomical prices for fruits. Clearly government oversight of Taiwan tourism remains inadequate. The long term survival of the tourism industry depends upon word of mouth. If one fruit vendor charges rip off prices, the price will be paid by all. The agencies in charge must not allow one bad apple to spoil the entire barrel.

The Tourism Bureau has recently received numerous complaints from Mainland Chinese and Singaporean tourists. Some fruit vendors at the Shilin Night Market have been charging 1800 NT for pineapples. They have been charging 1100 NT for four bags of sliced fruit. Compare that to the market price, and it is clear they are ripping off foreign tourists. Needless to say, any positive impression of Taiwan the tourists might have had, will be utterly destroyed. After returning home, they may warn friends and relatives to steer clear of Taiwan. They may even post warnings on the Internet.

The follow-up was even more discouraging. The Tourism Bureau said these vendors were the responsibility of local governments. Between March and May of this year, the Taipei City Government received a series of reports from the Tourism Bureau. The Market Management Department of the Taipei City Government tracked and confirmed the incidents. It issued "Travelers Alerts" for five fruit vendors. It sent a letter to the Tourism Bureau of the MOTC, to be forwarded to travel agencies, advising tourists not to patronize these merchants. In other words, they advised travel agents to warn tourists to avoid these merchants. But they failed to issue alerts to individual tourists. Nor did they issue warnings to, or impose penalties upon vendors who charged rip off prices. The Shilin Night Market Council said the vendors were not members of their council. Therefore the council could not intervene.

What sort of oversight is this? Vendors remain free to charge rip off prices. Only travel agencies advise tourists to steer clear. But other tourists, traveling on their own, are left to fend for themselves? This sort of passive oversight turns overseers into accomplices. Foreign tourists are unaware of the market prices for fruit. These vendors exploit their lack of information, and take advantage of them. This is despicable. Is it even legal? Law enforcement agencies should clarify. Such behavior harms Taiwan's tourism industry. It results in a loss of revenue. It undermines the island's image. It discredits its tourism industry. The government agencies responsible must not tolerate such conduct.

Only rigorous oversight and strict penalties for unscrupulous businesspeople will ensure a sound business environment and quality service. Mainland tourists were charged astronomical prices for tea leaves in the past. But after the vendors were prosecuted, such incidents became infrequent. Therefore this is all undoable.

At the very least, vendors must clearly indicate their prices. That way the customer can make comparisons. The agencies responsible can issue some sort of sticker to vendors who operate above board, for the benefit of tourists. They can set up service and complaint centers nearby so that tourists may seek assistance.

Taiwan's tourism industry has made a real effort over the years. It has achieved a great deal. Last year the tourism industry earned over 11 billion USD in foreign exchange. It grew by 26.4%. Approximately 6.08 million tourists visited the island. This represents an 9.4% increase over the previous year. Tourism foreign exchange earnings and the number of international tourists rose to record highs. Mainland tourists still account for the lion's share. But Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korean tourists have also increased.

In the eyes of foreign tourists, Taiwan's main attractions are its cuisine, night markets, cultural diversity, natural beauty, and its human touch. That is why CNN's travel website lists Taiwan near the top of its list. But the tourism industry is a multi-faceted service industry. No link should be overlooked. Every link must be included. Take the Shihlin Night Market fruit price rip offs. They underscore the potential problems caused by neglect. Also, if Taiwan hopes to develop its tourism industry. it must increase the use of English.

For years, foreign tourists have complained about how unfriendly the environment is to foreigners who rely on English. Many places lack English signs. Others have chaotic signage. The same road may have several different translations. Halfway down the road, another name may appear. People wind up utterly confused. Foreigners wind up questioning the country's governance. Yet the administration seems to think the matter lacks urgency. The massive influx of tourists from the Mainland in recent years, who speak, read, and write Chinese, has masked the problem of a poor English environment.

The problem remains. According to the Tourism Bureau of the MOTC, South Korean tourists' satisfaction rating was only 75%. This was far lower than the 94.39% for tourists from other countries. Korean tourists were most dissatisfied with the lack of English communication skills among Taiwan public. Over 37% of all Korean tourists were troubled most by the tourism environment and language difficulties. They complained that roads and facilties lacked Korean signage.

The global economy has experienced a downturn. Tourism revenue has eased the impact of Taiwan's diminished exports. Taiwan must improve its tourism environment. This will ensure long-term profitability. It will also promote Taiwan's attractions and values in the international community. This deserves our support. It is something government agencies should work harder to achieve.

打造友善觀光環境 政府要加把勁

    2012-10-26
    中國時報

 在中國大陸觀光客大量湧入下,台灣近年來的觀光收入大增,但日前傳出天價水果坑殺外國遊客事件,凸顯政府對台灣旅遊環境的管理仍有不足。觀光事業的延續非常靠口碑,一攤賺黑心錢,代價大家賠,相關單位不能放任幾粒老鼠屎壞了台灣的整體聲譽。

 交通部觀光局日前接獲大陸及新加坡旅客投訴,士林夜市有攤商四粒鳳梨釋迦開價新台幣一千八百元,四袋水果切片要一千一百元。和行情價一比,這很明顯是在坑殺外國人,不消說,受害觀光客如果原先對台灣有美好印象,此時也完全毀了,甚至回國後警告親朋或上網昭告大家台灣行不得。

 但此事後續發展,卻更加令人失望。交通部觀光局說攤商是地方政府在管理,而台北市政府早在今年三月和五月就接獲觀光客舉報,台北市政府市場管理處追查後確認,將五個水果攤列為「旅遊警示」,並發函交通部觀光局轉知各旅行公會,建議旅客不要前往。換句話說,只是要旅行社告誡旅客迴避,並沒有對其他散客發出警示,也沒有警告或處罰黑心攤販。而士林夜市自治會則表示,那幾個攤子不屬於自治會的轄區,自治會無法可管。

 這是什麼管理?放任黑心攤商自由獵殺,而只能要旅行社帶團時閃遠一點,讓其他自由行觀光客自求多福?這種消極管理,不是黑心攤商的幫凶嗎?外國遊客不知道水果的一般行情,攤商利用他們在資訊上的弱勢詐財,是非常惡劣的欺騙行為,是否已構成違法,執法單位應該加以釐清。這種惡行令台灣觀光業無辜受害,造成國家形象與觀光收益損失,政府相關單位不能放任不管。

 唯有強力整頓管理,嚴懲不肖業者,才能建立起一個健全的經營環境,提供良好的服務品質。過去也曾發生過觀光區天價茶葉賣陸客的事情,但經過取締後,這類事件已經大幅減少。所以,這絕對不是做不到的事情。

 至少,攤商販售的商品如果清楚標示價格,顧客就可以作個比較;相關單位也可以對正派經營的攤商發給某種標示,供觀光客參考,並且設立服務與申訴中心,讓遊客可以就近反映。

 憑良心講,台灣這些年發展觀光產業,的確付出了許多努力,也獲致良好成果。去年觀光外匯收入超過一百一十億美元,年成長率達廿六.四%,入境旅客六○八萬人次,也較前一年成長九.三四%。觀光外匯收入與國際旅客數雙雙創下歷史新高,客源雖然仍以陸客為最大宗,但香港、新加坡、韓國客也頗有成長。

 在國際觀光客的評價裡,美食、夜市、多元文化、自然美景及熱情友善的人情味,都是台灣最吸引人的強項,也因此在美國有線新聞網(CNN)旅遊網站排名上,台灣數一數二。但觀光業是一種多面向的服務業,每個環節都不能輕忽,而且必須整合,像士林夜市天價水果事件,就凸顯出三不管地帶可能造成的問題。此外,台灣要發展觀光,還有一個面向需要好好加強,那就是英語環境。

 長年以來,一再有外國觀光客反映,台灣的英文環境對老外非常不友善。許多地方不是缺乏英文標示,就是亂標一通,甚至同一條路有不同的譯名,走到一半換了另一個名字,讓人看得霧煞煞。外國人會因此對這個國家的治理打上大問號,但似乎政府上下沒有人認為這需要盡快解決。而近年來通中文的陸客湧入,也掩蓋了英文環境不佳問題的迫切性。

 但問題還是存在,例如在交通部觀光局的調查中,韓國旅客的滿意度七五%,就遠低於其他國家旅客的九四.三九%;而韓客最不滿意的,是台灣人英文溝通能力差,有三七%以上韓客反應,最困擾的就是旅遊環境與語言溝通,以及道路指標及設施少有韓文標示。

 在全球景氣低迷中,觀光收入緩和了外銷萎縮對台灣造成的衝擊。對台灣來說,加強改善台灣的觀光環境,不但可以創造長久的獲利,還能把台灣的美麗與價值行銷到國際社會,這值得我們付出努力,也是政府相關部門應該加把勁的課題。
            

Economic Experts and Taiwan's Policy Path

Economic Experts and Taiwan's Policy Path
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 25, 2012


Summary: American economists Thomas Sargent and Christopher A. Sims have been jointly awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Economics for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy. Sargent was recently interviewed by the United Daily News Economic Times. Sims met with members of the public today. People on Taiwan are actively seeking a response to their economic hardships. These experts have arrived at just the right time. They are expected to revive exploration and discussion of economic theory.

 Full Text below: 

American economists Thomas Sargent and Christopher A. Sims have been jointly awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Economics for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy. Sargent was recently interviewed by the United Daily News Economic Times. Sims met with members of the public today. People on Taiwan are actively seeking a response to their economic hardships. These experts have arrived at just the right time. They are expected to revive exploration and discussion of economic theory.

Sims' most important contribution was to the methodology of economics. His Vector Autoregression, or VAR, uses biochemical variables to confirm the causal relationship between variables. He claims he can reduce over-reliance on hypothetical assumptions by using data derived from the causal relationship between economic policies. VAR also explains how the economy is affected by temporary changes in economic policy and other factors. Sims received the prize for an important reason. His method better clarifies cause and effect. It is not limited to a discussion of the relevance of policy. His concept is important to statistical science. More importantly, governments can use his concepts in the formulation of policy. They can use them to accurately judge the interaction between a wide range of variables. They can use them to modify their regulatory policies according to economic development and anticipated targets. They can use them to alter the content of their policy according to a changing economic situation. Only then can policies be implemented smoothly and achieve the desired results.

Now apply these theoretical observations to our own situation. Take tecently released economic data. As we approach the end of the third quarter, we are finally witnessing the dawn of an economic recovery. Exports have grown 10.4%. We have emerged from several months of recession. This year export orders have ceased to decline and increased 1.9%. The domestic economy suffered as a result of poor fundamentals. Government officials were finally able to breath a sigh of relief. But the 2011 starting base was relatively low. Has the economy really recovered? That remains to be seen. The government's recent economic stimulus package has not produced perceptible results. Faced with this situation, the government should carefully examine the content of its policies and the reasons for public disappointment. It should think about how to amend them or supplement them. It should further integrate its administrative team. It should enable fiscal, monetary, educational, and labor policies to complement each other. It should strengthen its economic stimulus package. The government seems to think it has done enough. It seems to think that the reason the public fails to perceive the improvement is insufficient publicity. Therefore it is using the Internet to publicize its achievements. It also hopes that civil servants will use community websites as a propaganda tool. But this sort of thinking inverts cause and effect. It underscores the importance of Sims' theoretical elaboration of the relationship between cause and effect.

Now look ahead to the 2013 international economic situation. US government spending may be reduced due to the fiscal cliff. Major forecasting organizations think that the United States' 2013 economic growth rate will fall by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points over the current year. Japan's reconstruction spending has also passed its peak. Its 2013 economic growth rate will be reduced by about one percentage point; The Chinese mainland is experiencing a smooth succession in leadership. It may introduce new economic policies to promote economic performance. But any conclusions about their effectiveness must await their actual policy content. The fiscal problems of the nations within the European Union are gradually fading. Growth is expected to resume in 2013. But for the moment their economies are still weak.

Now take Taiwan. As a small open economy, is must be especially careful. The process of economic globalization continues. Economic and political policies have already broken through national boundaries. International trade impacts other countries. Governments intervene in their own national economies and affect economic cycles. International trade, international capital flows, and exchange rate changes have a spillover effect on other countries' economies. Therefore, future policy responses to the international situation should consider the impact of these policies. They should consider the spillover effects of these policies on other countries. The formulation of economic policy must consider the domestic situation. But it must also consider the international impact. It must consider other countries' policy response. It must consider how their responses will affect one's own policies, including regional economic integration, or the promotion of free trade zones. It must consider the links between various nations' industrial production. It must pay attention to domestic economic policy direction. Only then can it make the most of its policies. Only then can it fully realize the benefits of its policies.

以大師學術精髓反思台灣政策走向
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.25

美國經濟學家沙金特教授(Thomas Sargent)與席姆斯(Christopher A. Sims)教授以他們在「總體經濟因果關係的實證研究」方面的貢獻,在二○一一年共同獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎。繼日前沙金特應聯合報系經濟日報之請到訪之後,席姆斯也在今日會見各界,對於正在積極尋找因應經濟困局對策的台灣,大師的來訪正當其時,預料將再度引起相關理論的探索與討論。

席姆斯的重要貢獻,是針對經濟學方法論

提出「向量自我迴歸」(Vector Autoregression, VAR),透過將所有變數內生化的作法,來驗證變數之間的因果關係。並據以主張,根據數據中呈現的因果關係來制訂經濟政策,就能減少過度依賴理論假設所造成的問題;此外,也可應用於分析經濟如何受到經濟政策臨時性改變及其他因素的影響。席姆斯獲獎的重要原因,在於他的方法更能釐清因果關係,而非僅止於討論相關程度,這樣的概念除了在統計學上相當重要之外,政府在制訂執行各類政策時,也可遵循這樣的概念,正確且全盤考量各種變數之間的相互影響,以根據經濟發展情況制訂調控政策和預期目標,同時又根據經濟形勢的變化和政策實施效果來調整政策內容,才能讓政策順利推動並得到預期的效果。

運用上述理論觀察我國近況,近期發佈的經濟數據中,台灣終於在第三季的尾聲看見景氣復甦的曙光,出口成長十‧四%的表現,擺脫連續數個月衰退的窘境,外銷訂單也出現止跌回升至年增一‧九%,讓苦於國內經濟狀況不佳的政府官員們總算能夠稍微鬆一口氣;但事實上,由於二○一一基期數據較低,是否能夠就此推斷景氣回溫尚未可知,而政府近期所提的經濟振興方案亦未讓民眾感受到政策效果。面對此一情況,政府本應對政策內容及民意落差進行深入探討,思考如何進行修正與增補,進一步整合行政團隊,讓財政、貨幣、教育、勞動政策能相互搭配,強化經濟推升方案的效果;不過,目前政府似乎認為已經做得夠多,民眾的無感主因在於宣傳不足,因此除了用網路廣告的方式宣傳之外,還希望透過公務人員個人社群網站做為宣導工具,這種思考模式似乎是「倒果為因」,也讓席姆斯理論中對於因果關係的闡述顯得更加重要。

展望二○一三年國際經濟情勢,美國由於財政懸崖導致政府支出可能減少,主要預測機構認為美國二○一三年經濟成長率將較今年減少○‧二至○‧三個百分點;日本也由於重建支出高峰已過,二○一三年經濟成長率也將減少約一個百分點;中國大陸雖在領導階層順利接班後可能推出新的經濟政策帶動經濟表現,但成效仍須視政策實際內容才能論定;而歐盟在各國財政問題效果逐漸淡化的情況下,二○一三年有望恢復成長,但力道仍顯薄弱。

對於台灣而言,作為小型開放經濟體尤須深思,在經濟全球化的進程中,經濟與政策的因果關連早已突破了國界的限制,各國間不僅在貿易上有著相互影響,同時各國政府干預自身國家經濟運行與景氣循環的經濟政策,也會透過國際貿易、國際資本流動以及匯率變化等管道對他國經濟產生外溢效果。所以,在因應未來國際情勢的政策中,不僅要考慮本國政策的影響,也要考慮他國政策溢出效應的影響;在制訂經濟政策時,不但要考慮國內情況,也要考慮國際影響以及他國政策反應又會對本國政策實施效果產生何種影響,像是積極參與區域經濟整合,或是推動自由貿易區的同時,也應一併考量各國產業連結的現況,並持續關注其國內經濟政策走向,才能做出最好的政策配合,讓政策效果完全展現。

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

U.S. Election: Election Rhetoric vs. Political Reality

U.S. Election: Election Rhetoric vs. Political Reality
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2012


Summary: The United States' international and domestic predicament has remained the same since the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the 2008 financial tsunami. No matter who becomes president, he will find it difficult to alter this political reality. Fourteen days remain until election day. One might say that voter expectations will determine the outcome of the presidential election. But it might be more accurate to say that voter feelings will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Full Text below:

The final debate between the US presidential candidates ended yesterday. Only two weeks remain before election day. Polls show the two candidates tied at 47% to 47%. They are evenly matched. It is hard to tell who is ahead.

Twenty-two days ago Obama was well ahead in the polls. Nearly all election analysts assumed a Romney upset was impossible. But who knew Obama's performance during the first debate on October 2 would be so poor, and Romney's would be so assured? That debate set a record for the greatest disparity ever to emerge from a presidential debate. In 1961 Kennedy debated Nixon in the first televised presidential debate in history. It too resulted in the same kind of upset. Since then, Obama and Romney's election prospects have swung back and forth like a pendulum.

After the first debate, Obama became alarmed. During the second debate, he launched a strong counterattack. He constantly interrupted his opponent. He pointed his finger at his chest. He accused Romney of being wrong and dishonest. He just stopped short of calling his opponent a liar. The confrontation was rude and reeked with mutual contempt. It has been characterized as the least civilized presidential debate ever held. The second debate addressed economic issues. It was generally believed that rhetorically speaking, Obama would win.

Most foreign governments still hope and believe that Obama will be re-elected over Romney. After all, Obama has four years of experience. He is a known quanity. Obama seems more willing to allow emerging countries to share the world stage with the United States. Romney, on the other hand, apparently evinces an "America First, accept no substitutes" arrogance. Romney aides are mostly former Bush officials. They are the same neoconservatives who launched the war in Iraq. His Middle East policy grants Israel carte blanche. He will not hesitate to launch a preemptive war against Iran. In particular, Romney bristles with hostility toward Mainland China. His rhetoric has reached peaks unprecedented in previous presidential campaigns. If Romney takes office will he bring about dramatic changes in East Asia? This is why the international community was deeply concerned about the debate on diplomacy and national defense held on the evening of the 22nd.

During the final debate both sides found themselves in disarray. Obama was the incumbent president. Yet he acted like the challenger. He repeatedly accused Romney of "living in the past." He said Romney's security strategy was mired in the Cold War, in the 1980s, his social policy was mired in the 1950s, and his economic policy was mired in the 1920s. Obama's strategy was to portray Romney as a militant hawk. Romney countered, saying that attacks against him would not cover up the chaos caused by Obama's policy failures in the Middle East.

Romney has no practical governing experience. But his international policy rhetoric was passable. Romney comes from a Republican background. When dealing with security and defense issues, it is easy for him to win the trust of the American public. Americans are war weary. Romney did not need to underscore his hawkishness. Therefore, during the third debate he softened his rhetoric. In 1982 Carter debated Reagan. Once Reagan spoke before a national television audience, they no longer believed that Reagan would be so imprudent as to launch a nuclear war. Concerns about Reagan's ability to serve as commander in chief also evaporated. The third debate softened Romney's previously negative image. Obama ridiculed Romney's plans to expand the US Navy, saying Romney had no idea what era he was living in. Today's national defense no longer uses horses and bayonets, like World War I. Underestimating one's opponent could be counterproductive.

The final debate on the evening of the 22nd put Mainland China issues at the very end. But the two men did not deal with the issue of Mainland China's strength as well as they did during the previous two debates. Romney promised that on the first day after taking office he would classify Mainland China as a currency manipulator. But most experts believe that if elected, he would immediately find a reason to renege on his promise. Both men emphasized that the United States must ensure that Mainland China becomes a responsible world power. But they were reluctant to actually draw lines in the sand. The debate never touched upon important countries in Europe, or on Japan and India. The Middle East accounted for five-sixths of the time. Israel was mentioned dozens of times. Americans' international concerns are actually very populist and very narrow.

Let us review the results of the debate. Romney won the first debate. Obama the second. The third was a draw. But Obama scored more points. In the end however, the domestic economy, unemployment, and public hardship will determine the outcome of the election, not the international situation. The third debate will have little impact on the election. The three debates were rife with election rhetoric. On foreign policy, the candidates puffed themselves up feigning ruthlessness. On domestic policy, the candidates' policies created social divisions and confrontation. But the United States' international and domestic predicament has remained the same since the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the 2008 financial tsunami. No matter who becomes president, he will find it difficult to alter this political reality. Fourteen days remain until election day. One might say that voter expectations will determine the outcome of the presidential election. But it might be more accurate to say that voter feelings will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

美國大選:選舉語言反襯政治現實
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.24

最後一場辯論昨日收場,美國總統選舉進入最後兩周。最新的幾個民調顯示,四十七%對四十七%,兩人打成平手。可謂勢均力敵,難分軒輊。

二十二天前,歐巴馬民調遙遙領先,幾乎所有選情觀察家都認為羅姆尼翻盤無望。可是,沒料到十月二日的第一場辯論,歐巴馬表現極差,羅姆尼則中規中矩,那場辯論創下歷來總統辯論最懸殊的勝負差距,而史上亦只有一九六○年甘迺迪對尼克森的首次電視辯論造成了同樣扭轉乾坤的效應。此後,歐羅二人的選情即陷於麻花交纏。

歐巴馬警醒之後,在第二場辯論,他發動全場強勢攻擊,不斷打斷對方話頭,手指對方胸口,大聲說:「你錯了,你不誠實。」只剩下沒有罵對手是騙子了。這種針鋒相對、毫無禮節、相互藐視的情狀,被指為所有總統辯論會中,最不文明的一次。第二場辯論主題是經濟,一般認為言辭便給的歐巴馬勝出。

世界多數國家仍然希望並且相信歐巴馬連任機會大於羅姆尼,畢竟歐巴馬有四年經驗,大家熟悉。歐巴馬比較樂見新興國家與美國共享世界舞台,而羅姆尼仍然保持「美國第一,舉世無雙」的傲慢。且羅姆尼的國際幕僚多是當年環繞布希、發動伊拉克戰爭的新保守主義者;他的中東政策放任以色列,且作態不惜先發制人發動伊朗戰爭。尤其,羅姆尼對中國的麻辣敵意,達到歷屆總統競選語言的最高峰。羅姆尼上台是否帶來東亞劇烈變化?這是國際十分關切二十二日晚第三場以外交國防為主的辯論之原因。

最後一場辯論,雙方角色錯亂。歐巴馬身為現任總統,表現反而像是挑戰者,一上場就連珠炮似的攻擊羅姆尼「活在過去」,謂羅的安全戰略停留在一九八○年代冷戰時期,社會政策停留在一九五○年代,經濟政策則停留在一九二○年代。歐巴馬的策略是把羅姆尼描繪成黷武好戰的鷹派,羅姆尼則反擊:「攻擊我,並不能遮蓋你的政策造成中東混亂的失敗。」

對於一個沒有實際主政經驗的候選人,羅姆尼在國際政策論述上的表現算是及格了。羅姆尼的共和黨背景,在處理安全和國防問題上容易得到美國人民的信任;美國人心厭戰,羅不必突出鷹派色彩,因此在第三次辯論中反而顯得柔軟了一些。正如一九八○年卡特對雷根辯論,全國電視前觀眾親眼見到雷根言談,不再認為雷根會輕率發動核子大戰,雷根能否擔任三軍統帥的疑慮也就過了關。第三場辯論,減少了羅姆尼原先被醜化的形象;歐巴馬則嘲笑羅姆尼的擴建海軍主張,不知今夕何夕,今天的國防已經不再像一戰時期使用馬匹和刺刀了,這種輕視對手的態度可能產生反效果。

二十二日晚上的最後一場辯論,中國問題擺在結尾,但二人攻擊中國的強度皆不如前兩次辯論。雖然羅姆尼再度保證上台第一天就會把中國列為操縱貨幣國,但是幾乎所有專家相信,他一旦選上之後,馬上設法會找到理由吞回這句話。兩人都強調美國要爭取中國成為世界上負責任的大國,皆不敢把狠話講死。辯論中一字沒有提到歐洲、日本、印度等重要國家,中東卻占據了六分之五的時間,以色列提到幾十次,顯示美國人關心的國際視野其實很民粹,也很狹窄。

回顧辯論成績,羅姆尼第一場大勝,第二場歐巴馬小贏,第三場難分高下,也可能歐巴馬得分較多。可是,決定選舉的是國內經濟就業和民生疾苦,不在國際情勢,第三場辯論的影響很小。三場辯論會中,皆充斥著「選舉語言」,在對外政策上膨風耍狠,在對內政策上製造撕裂與矛盾;但是,美國的國際困境與內政難題,自九一一事件、侵略伊拉克及二○○八金融海嘯以來,其實是大勢已定,可以預見任何人作總統皆不易扭轉此種政治現實。未來十四天的競選,與其說選民對二人的不同期望將決定大選的勝負,不如說選民對二人的總體感覺將決定鹿死誰手。

Chen Cabinet Must Seize the Economic Opportunity

Chen Cabinet Must Seize the Economic Opportunity
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 23, 2012


Summary: This week the CEPD will announce its September economic indices. Analysts expect an end to the current run of ten blue lights, the second longest in history. Yellow-blue lights suggest that the economy is about to turn the corner. The global economic recovery has begun. Premier Sean Chen and his cabinet members must use the opportunity to revive the economy.

Full Text below:

This week the CEPD will announce its September economic indices. Analysts expect an end to the current run of ten blue lights, the second longest in history. Yellow-blue lights suggest that the economy is about to turn the corner. The global economic recovery has begun. Premier Sean Chen and his cabinet members must use the opportunity to revive the economy.

Economic indicators for September announced this month suggest an upturn. For example, exports and export orders are bouncing back after six consecutive months of recession. Exports have established new monthly highs. Export oriented industrial production has increased for the past three months. Yesterday's announcement shows the unemployment rate retreating slightly from its seasonal peak. Therefore, as long as financial and consumption indicators do not deteriorate significantly, the indices show a move toward blue lights. Prosperity should be just around the corner. President Ma wanted Premier Chen to produce "tangible" economic improvements within a month. The improved economic indicators from September suggest that the Chen cabinet has squeaked by.

Tangible economic indicators are not always tangible to the general public. To be tangible to the general public, the domestic economy must show clear improvement. All we can say is that the latest index established a bottom. After all, it was only a one month period. One usually looks at three month periods. Will the numbers hold? Or will the bottom fall out? That depends on whether Sean Chen and his team can rise to the occasion and seize the opportunity. They have accumulated eight months of governing experience. They have learned to become effective. They have been decisive in their policy making. They have demonstrated excellent timing.

Consider time and tide factor number one. The cabinet is starting from a low base point. This should give the executive branches' policies time to take effect. The economic indicators have resulted in ten blue lights in a row. Last November we entered a bust period. Hopefully the real economy can maintain current levels during the fourth quarter. Hopefully the deterioration will not spread. Various indicators continue to show growth. They instill confidence in the economy. These indicators are stable. This enables the executive branch to launch its "Exports Proliferation Plan," its "economic momentum promotion plan," and other major policies plans. These indicators have made the claims that we are entering a blue light period more convincing.

Consider time and tide factor number two. Housing market and stock market policy have already accounted for short term dips. These two major markets now offer opportunities for long term gains. The luxury tax, intended to improve the housing market, has been in effect for almost a year and a half. It has discouraged speculative trading. The true market value reporting system for real estate transactions was initiated in October. It has reduced uncertainty. Increasing transparency has facilitated transactions. Supply and demand in the housing market is expected to become more stable.

The stock market is a window on the economy. The economy is poor as a result of international financial shocks and economic fundamentals. It has also been impacted by the PSL tax policy. Both prices and volume have been inhibited. It has also been impacted by the capital gains tax to be levied next year. Policies must be given time to take effect. Investors and funds who had misgivings will then return to the Taiwan stock market, unless they have given up altogether. Therefore the executive branch must seize the opportunity to boost the economy. They must help Taiwan stocks attract investors.

Consider time and tide factor number three. The global economic recovery has begun. This will pave the way for the administration's economic policies. Since the beginning of the year, the performance of four major economies, including the U.S., Mainland China, the Eurozone, and Japan, have been hobbled. Another dip in the global economy could result in new lows. But recent data shows that, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped significantly. Consumer spending has begun to increase. The housing market has also picked up. The Eurozone debt crisis has yet to be resolved. But at least there has been no further deterioration. One issue is the most talked about. Last week Mainland China reported a third-quarter economic growth rate of 7.4%. This was the lowest it has been in seven quarters. But it was in line with expectations. This has greatly reduced concerns that the Mainland economy will experience a hard landing. It is hard to say that the global economy is on the road to recovery. But Taiwan's exports are aleady feeling the warmth. The Chen cabinet has been hobbled by the international situation since it took office. Now however, its hands and feet have been freed. Now it can focus on domestic economic issues.

Leaders emerge in times of crisis. It would be unrealistic to expect the Chen cabinet to immediately offer a comprehensive policy proposal. Sean Chen has introduced quite a few policies during his eight months in office. They include the cross-Strait currency clearing mechanism, a fourth wave of Mainland investments in Taiwan, a cross-Strait service industry agreement, and plans for a free trade economic zone. Hopefully these policies will be implemented as planned. They can inspire confidence and exert a real impact on economic growth.

Sean Chen is seen as a financial wizard. Leaders emerge in times of crisis. We hope he can lead the economy out of the fog.

陳內閣須掌握經濟轉折的契機
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.23

經建會本周將公布九月景氣對策信號,預期將會終結歷來第二長的十藍燈,亮出代表景氣進入轉折期的黃藍燈,值此全球經濟復甦氛圍重現的大環境下,行政院長陳?及財經閣員可要好好把握重振經濟的契機。

本月以來揭曉的多項九月經濟指標,都出現了好轉的訊息,例如已連續六個月衰退的出口及外銷訂單都止跌回升,出口更一舉寫下歷年單月新高,與出口連動的工業生產則已連三月增產;還有昨天公布的失業率,也從季節性高峰略為回降。因此,只要金融活動與消費指標沒有明顯惡化,指引景氣動向的對策信號走出藍燈區,應是指日可待。如果經濟指標可以當做馬總統要求陳揆一個月拿出「有感」績效的標準之一,那麼,九月經濟指標動起來,陳內閣應可算是勉強達標了。

可是,大家心知肚明,經濟指標「有感」,不代表民眾「有感」,要讓民眾對施政「有感」,國內經濟必須真正好起來。由此說來,這一個月的績效只能說打了一個底,畢竟只有一個月的數字,一般至少要觀察三個月;至於這是一個牢固不破的實底,還是不堪一擊的虛底,那就要看陳?團隊能否掌握「時勢造英雄」的經濟轉折點,將就任八個多月以來累積的施政經驗、教訓及成效,以明快的政策、精準的節奏一一展現了。

「時勢」之一,同期比較的低基期效應,將為行政部門爭取政策發酵需要的時間。景氣燈號既已連十藍,表示去年十一月起即進入景氣萎縮期,因而只要第四季實體經濟保持近月的水準、不再擴大惡化,各項指標就可望持續呈現「成長」的格局,撐住起碼的經濟信心。這段指標安定期將可讓行政部門之前推出的「出口龍騰計畫」及「經濟動能推升方案」等重大政策效益,變得比藍燈期有說服力。

「時勢」之二,房市及股市的政策調整「短空」效應將過高峰,兩大市場「長多」契機可期。為健全房市而實施的奢侈稅已實施快一年半,其抑制投機性交易的效果逐步顯現,加以房產交易實價登錄制也已於十月啟動,新制的不確定性降低,而日趨透明化的房價資訊則有利於促進交易,房市供需可望在實質需求驅動下步向穩定。

至於被視為經濟櫥窗的股市,在國際金融局勢震盪及經濟基本面欠佳下,又須額外承受證所稅開徵的政策影響,價量同受抑制,如今證所稅已確定明年開徵,經過時間及政策沉澱,曾有疑懼的投資人及資金可望重回台股,除非已經完全棄守。因此,行政部門此時更要用力提振經濟,為台股增添吸引投資的元素。

「時勢」之三,全球經濟復甦氛圍重現,為經濟政策的施展鋪平道路。自年初以來,美國、中國大陸、歐元區及日本等四大經濟體的表現一直步履蹣跚,全球經濟再次探底的風險隱隱作祟,但新近數據顯示,美國失業率大幅下降、消費者支出開始增加,房市也回暖;歐元區債務危機未除,但至少未再惡化;最受關注的是,中國大陸上周公布第三季經濟成長率為百分之七點四,雖是七季以來最低,但符合預期,因而大大降低了大陸經濟將硬著陸的疑慮。儘管尚難斷言全球經濟就此步上復甦的康莊大道,但已讓台灣出口感受到溫暖,也讓就任以來困於「國際局勢」的陳內閣,得以騰出手腳,更專注於治理國內經濟課題。

然而,即使期待時勢可以造英雄,我們也不會不切實際地期待陳內閣能立即端出政策牛肉大餐;實際上,陳?就任八個多月來運籌經營的重大興利政策不少,例如兩岸貨幣清算機制上路、第四波開放陸資來台投資、兩岸簽署服務業貿易協議及公布自由經濟示範區計畫等,這些政策若都能如期如質推出,其信心激勵及實質效應即足以為經濟點起成長之火。

因此,被視為財經才子的陳?也有機會「英雄造時勢」,引領台灣經濟走出迷霧。

Monday, October 22, 2012

Su Tseng-chang must not force Frank Hsieh to operate outside the Party Framework

Su Tseng-chang must not force Frank Hsieh to operate outside the Party Framework
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2012


Summary: Has "Su/Hsieh cooperation" been shattered? That is no longer the issue. The real issue is whether the DPP is about to break up as a political party. For this Su Tseng-chang must bear primary responsibility. An October 18th editorial published by this newspaper urged Su Tseng-chang to lift the lid off a boiling pot, and allow the chloroform to boil off. Su Tseng-chang's current responsibility is to lift the lid. Who will be the chloroform boiled off? That depends on the party as a whole. The party chairman may not deprive the party of a major democratic debate over party reform.

Full Text below:

Has "Su/Hsieh cooperation" been shattered? That is no longer the issue. The real issue is whether the DPP is about to break up as a political party. For this Su Tseng-chang must bear primary responsibility.

Frank Hsieh has already crossed the Rubicon. He is not about to let matters rest. The situation is clear. Su Tseng-chang must allow Frank Hsieh to force a show down inside the party. Otherwise Hsieh will continue to promote his agenda outside the party. Su Tseng-chang is party chairman. He is a 2016 presidential contender. He has an unshirkable responsibility, both to himself and to the party. He must defuse the dispute over party reform from inside the party. He must not allow it to become a struggle between those inside the party and those outside the party. That would lead to the party breaking apart.

Frank Hsieh now stands on the great divide between the party and the outside world. He can take one step one way and find himself inside the party framework. Or he can take one step the other way, and find himself outside the party framework. One. Frank Hsieh has every right to expect Su Tseng-chang to deal with party reform from inside the party, in his capacity as DPP leader. After all, DPP reform is not Frank Hsieh's private agenda. The DPP and the public on Taiwan are also involved. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang cannot refuse to deal with the most serious controversy pertaining to DPP reform since its founding as a political party. If Su Tseng-chang tackles the issue of party reform from within the party, then Frank Hsieh must remain inside the party. He cannot go outside the party.

But if Su Tseng-chang slams the door shut, and refuses to deal with party reform from within the party, Frank Hsieh will be forced to go outside the party. The two men will find themselves on different paths. One. Frank Hsieh said "The DPP will not break apart." But Hsieh staffers have already let it be known that if Su/Hsieh cooperation is shattered, Frank Hsieh's Taiwan Reform Foundation "has not ruled out going its own way." It would become an NGO promoting DPP/CCP exchanges. Meanwhile, Taiwan-oriented think tanks on the Chinese mainland have also responded. They say there is no reason not to hold DPP/CCP exchanges, with the Taiwan Reform Foundation taking the lead. Its desire to divide the DPP and incite conflict is all too clear. This path is of course outside the party framework.

Two. Suppose Su Tseng-chang forces Frank Hsieh to operate outside the party? Frank Hsieh and Tsai Ing-wen may well join forces. Add to this "DPP/CCP exchanges, with the Taiwan Reform Foundation taking the lead." The DPP would effectively end up with two suns to revolve around, two party leadership centers, and two cross-Strait policy paths. If this happens, those outside the party would oppose those inside the party. It would without a doubt lead to a breakup of the party.

One cannot place all the blame on Frank Hsieh. One cannot say he "forced the emperor to abdicate." This is a turning point in history. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang must not refuse to reform the party from within. If he does, he will be evading his "destiny." The master switch is in Su Tseng-chang's hands. He can flick the switch one way -- inside the party. He can flick the switch the other way -- outside the party. It all hinges on his whim. On the 18th this newspaper published an editorial saying that Su Tseng-chang should not be bound by either the reform camp or the Taiwan independence camp. He should let go of all attachments. He should adopt a transcendent stance befitting the party chairman. He should adopt an attitude of noblesse oblige. He should enable the two sides to engage in democratic debate over party reform. He should even consider putting the issue to a democratic vote. Su Tseng-chang should act as a midwife. Intraparty democracy will determine whether the child is a boy or a girl. But he must not delude himself. He must not imagine he can shove the infant back into the womb. Su Tseng-chang can show that he is neither being forced to abdicate by the Hsieh faction, nor being hijacked by the Taiwan independence faction. This is how he can maintain a commanding position above the two rival factions with the party.

How else can Su Tseng-chang deal with Frank Hsieh? He can hardly allow himself to remain mired within this embarrassing dilemma, where he neither fights nor surrenders, neither joins with nor splits from Frank Hsieh. How much political capital can Su Tseng-chang afford to squander? Can the DPP avoid the risk that the party may break apart?

The problem has reached the point where one can neither advance nor retreat. The main reasons are the 2016 presidential election and longstanding grievances between Su, Tsai, and Hsieh. This is the situation they face. We would like to reiterate the appeal we made in our September 11th editorial, "Su, Tsai, and Hsieh Must Unite to Promote DPP Reform." The three should first draw up plans for party reform, then worry about the presidential election. They should work together to promote this difficult reform, within the party. They should not conflate the work of party reform with the presidential election and intraparty power struggles. Otherwise the result could be a lose/lose/lose proposition. The future of the DPP itself could be at risk. If reformers are forced to operate outside the party, Beijing will support the Taiwan Reform Foundation platform. The Taiwan Reform Foundation platform will join the Tsai/Hsieh alliance. The Tsai/Hsieh alliance will oppose Su Tseng-chang and the party leadership. The DPP will effectively end up with two suns to revolve around, two party leadership centers, and two cross-Strait policy paths. Can the DPP afford such a schism?

The DPP finds itself in a dilemma. It is on the verge of breaking apart. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang must adopt a transcendent posture and champion intraparty democracy. He must begin a democratic dialogue. This will enable him to maintain his transcendent status. Otherwise Su Tseng-chang may go down in infamy as someone who suppressed intraparty democracy which led to the breakup of the party.

An October 18th editorial published by this newspaper urged Su Tseng-chang to lift the lid off a boiling pot, and allow the chloroform to boil off. Su Tseng-chang's current responsibility is to lift the lid. Who will be the chloroform boiled off? That depends on the party as a whole. The party chairman may not deprive the party of a major democratic debate over party reform.

蘇貞昌不可將謝長廷推到黨體制外
【聯合報╱社論】
012.10.22

就現今情勢發展來看,「蘇謝合」是否瀕於破局已屬小事,更大的問題尤在民進黨是否就此分裂。蘇貞昌應對此負主要的責任。

謝長廷已是過河卒子,不會善罷甘休。情勢顯示:蘇貞昌若不讓謝長廷在黨的體制內一決是非勝負,謝必然會在黨的體制外繼續推動他的既定方案。蘇貞昌作為黨主席,及作為二○一六年總統的角逐者,不論為己為黨,其無可迴避的責任,皆是必須將這場轉型爭議在黨的體制內化解,不可使之演成「體制外對抗體制內」的鬥爭,那就是黨的分裂。

謝長廷正站在體制內與體制外的分際線上,他可以走向體制內,也可以走到體制外。首先,謝長廷有足夠的正當理由,期望蘇貞昌的黨中央能在體制內處理此次轉型的論證;畢竟,這一次民進黨的轉型議題,並非謝長廷個人的節目,而是民進黨及整個台灣社會皆已捲入;因此,黨主席蘇貞昌根本沒有「權力」拒絕以黨體制來處理這個民進黨建黨以來最重大的轉型爭議。而蘇貞昌若在體制內發動轉型論證的機制,謝長廷自然必須回到體制內,不可在體制外另闢蹊徑。

但是,如果蘇貞昌關上了黨體制的大門,謝長廷或許就此走向體制外,且分兩途並進:一、雖然謝長廷說,「民進黨不會分裂」,但謝辦已放話,倘若「蘇謝合」破局,謝長廷的「維新基金會」不排除「自己做自己的」,成為「民共交流」的「民間平台」;於此同時,大陸涉台智囊亦回應,不妨「民共交流/維新先行」,其分化挑撥的心機昭然若揭。這條路,當然是體制外。

二、蘇貞昌若將謝長廷推出了黨體制,謝長廷與蔡英文的合流,即更加順理成章;如果再與前項「民共交流/維新先行」相互呼應,則屆時民進黨就不啻演成「兩個太陽/兩個黨中央/兩條兩岸路線」的態勢。勢若趨此,這不但是「體制外對抗體制內」之局,且已與分裂無異了。

這個局面,不能全怪謝長廷在「逼宮」;因為,黨主席蘇貞昌在這個歷史拐點上,若拒絕以黨體制來處理轉型論證,顯已違背其「天職」。大局的開關操在蘇貞昌手上,他可以把開關撥到「體制內」,也可以撥向「體制外」,完全繫於他的一念之間。如本報十八日社論所言,此時蘇貞昌不應被「轉型派」或「獨派」中的任何一派綁住,而應放空一切,真正站在「黨主席」的「超越」地位上,居高臨下,讓雙方就轉型論述充分進行民主辯論,甚至付諸民主投票;也就是說,蘇貞昌作產婆,生男生女交由黨的民主機制決定,而不要妄想把露頭的嬰兒塞回去。如此,蘇貞昌始能展現「不受謝派逼宮」,「也不受獨派挾持」的威儀,在黨體制內重新佔據超越兩派的制高點。

否則,蘇貞昌面對謝長廷,如果繼續陷於這種「不戰/不降/不和/不走」的窘態,蘇貞昌自己能有多少政治本錢禁得起如此折騰?而民進黨又如何避免分裂危機?

問題搞到如此進退維谷的地步,主要是因二○一六總統大選與「蘇蔡謝三人心結」的交纏所致。面對這個局面,我們仍願重申九月十一日社論「籲蘇蔡謝共赴民進黨轉型工程」的呼籲,三人皆應「先轉型大計/後總統大選」,共同努力在黨體制內一起度過這個轉型難關,勿將轉型工程與總統大選及權力鬥爭糾纏一處,否則就可能三敗俱傷,連民進黨的前景也一併賠上;倘若局勢轉向「體制外」,變成了北京支持「維新平台」,「維新平台」聯結「蔡謝聯盟」,「蔡謝聯盟」對抗「蘇貞昌的黨中央」,並形成「兩個太陽/兩個黨中央/兩條兩岸路線」,這種分裂的局面,民進黨承受得起嗎?

民進黨在這種相持不下、瀕臨分裂的危機中,黨主席蘇貞昌只有跳到「黨內民主」的高度上,打開「民主論證」的平台,始有可能維持其「超越」的地位。否則,蘇貞昌即可能使自己留下「壓制黨內民主/造成全黨分裂」的歷史罵名。

本報十八日社論建議蘇貞昌,打開沸騰的壺蓋,煮掉三氯甲烷。蘇貞昌在此時的責任是打開壺蓋,至於誰會是被煮掉的「三氯甲烷」,應當訴諸全黨的智慧,黨主席沒有權力剝奪全黨民主論證就轉型工程進行大辯論的權利。

Thursday, October 18, 2012

How Will Su Tseng-chang Attack the Ball that Frank Hsieh Set for Him?

How Will Su Tseng-chang Attack the Ball that Frank Hsieh Set for Him?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 18, 2012


Summary: Frank Hsieh is a volleyball player who has set the ball for Su Tseng-chang. Now Su Tseng-chang must decide how he will attack it. Su and Hsieh have long-standing grievances. But Su and Hsieh have an opportunity to join hands and rewrite history. But the opportunity is fleeting. They can hardly be "in no hurry." Will the two help each other, or will they hurt each other. Will both end up as losers? This will all be decided in a fleeting moment.

Full Text below:

Frank Hsieh has returned from his visit to the Mainland. He has met with Su Tseng-chang and shared his findings. Following the meeting, Frank Hsieh said, "In the end, the future of cross-Strait policy must be decided by Chairman Su." Su Tseng-chang said, "We are in no hurry to establish a China Affairs Committee." Frank Hsieh is a volleyball player who has set the ball for Su Tseng-chang. Now Su Tseng-chang must decide how he will attack it.

Let us return to 1999 and 2000. Chen Shui-bian was a rising star. His support was enormous. He had become the DPP's ideal candidate for president. Under Party Chairman Lin Yi-hsiung, the DPP adopted the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." This camouflaged the party's "Taiwan independence party platform" and paved the way for Chen Shui-bian's election victory. The key figure in this political undertaking was Lin Yi-hsiung. He had two main virtues. One. He had a reputation for personal integrity and he had a high degree of name recogniton. Two. More importantly, he himself was not running for president.

Today the 2016 presidential election looms. The DPP must reform itself. DPP reform is even more urgent than it was in 2000. And yet "In the end, the future of cross-Strait policy must be decided by Chairman Su." But Chairman Su is also a 2016 presidential hopeful. This is a horse of a different color than 2000. Su Tseng-chang has assumed the role of Lin Yi-hsiung.

When Su Tseng-chang ran for party chairman, he touched off a major controversy. If the party chairman intends to run for president, he is bound to adversely impact the party's efforts at transformation. But this is precisely the situation we have before us. Su Tseng-chang is running for president. He must weigh the support he will receive from Taiwan independence hardliners against the support he will receive from party reformers. He will be forced to continually second guess himself. He will be incapable of throwing open the doors and embarking wholeheartedly on party reform. Conversely, if someone not running for president assumes responsibility for party reform, he can act boldly and decisively. He need only consider the future of the party. He need only set the ball for the party's presidential candidate. He need not worry about seeking support from opposing factions. This was the role Lin Yi-hsiung played back then. But this is not the role Su Tseng-chang is playing today.

Has Su Tseng-chang decided to abandon the work of party reform? From what we can see, Frank Hsieh is the only person providing Su with political leverage. This leverage, if passed up, may never come again. The DPP is talking about party reform. Assuming it is serious, it must meet four conditions. One. It must act from the top down. For example, the party leadership should launch a great debate. Two. If the party wishes to reform itself, it must get serious. It must forsake Chen Shui-bian era "rectification of names" campaigns. It must eschew word games such as "peace with differences," "peace while seeking common ground," or "transcendence." Three. It must enact dramatic and major reforms. Absent such a dramatic move, it probably will not succeed. Four. It must make someone with considerable resources and name recognition the star of the show, to serve as a pillar. Otherwise the show will not be able to go on.

From what we can see, Frank Hsieh meets three of the required conditions. He has undergone a sufficiently radical change. His change was radical enough that he could speak of a "one China constitution." His "bartender's trip" was sufficiently dramatic. With this move he knocked on Zhongnanhai's door. He sang the right tune. He carried a heavy load. All Frank Hsieh needs today is the support of Chairman Su. If Su Tseng-chang appoints Frank Hsieh Chairman of the China Affairs Committee, Hsieh will be strategically positioned. Top-down reform can then begin.

Su Tseng-chang must realize that as party chairman, leading DPP reform is his "destiny." Frank Hsieh is standing before him, precisely because he is the best leverage Su can get. There is nobody else. If Su Tseng-chang forsakes Frank Hsieh, he will not find a better champion of reform. He will be perceived as fleeing from responsibility. If this happens, there will repercussions. One. DPP reform will be delayed. The blame will fall on Su Tseng-chang. That is inescapable. Two. Party insiders and the general public will see Su Tseng-chang as a stumbling block, standing in the way of party reform. This will be disadvantageous to his bid for president. It will not prevent Tsai Ing-wen from joining forces with Frank Hsieh, and billing themselves as champions of party reform. Two years later they might even seize control of the DPP party leadership.

In other words, If Su Tseng-chang fails to attack the ball set up for him by Frank Hsieh, the damage will be incalculable, both for the party and for himself. Yet Su Tseng-chang insists that the current situation is "not urgent." In fact his main concern is that if the situation is not handled properly, it could hurt his 2016 election prospects. Can Frank Hsieh make allowances for Su Tseng-chang's dilemma? He appears to have made a genuine effort. Frank Hsieh should let Su Tseng-chang know that it is safe to make him Chairman of the DPP China Affairs Committee and entrust him with party reform. Hsieh should declare that he will not run for either president or vice president in the 2016 general election, and that he will not side with any of the DPP presidential hopefuls. Hsieh should declare that reform is for the future of the DPP and Taiwan, and must not become a part of intraparty power struggles. Such declarations would rebuild the relationships between Frank Hsieh, Su Tseng-chang, and Tsai Ing-wen. If Frank Hsieh wants to become the champion of party reform, he must assume a transcendent position. Perhaps Su Tseng-chang is waiting for such assurances from Frank Hsieh? Otherwise, if party reform becomes a part of intraparty power struggles, the party will debase itself. Words will not be adequate to describe the consequences.

Su Tseng-chang remains the key. But Su has a huge blind spot. He seems to think he must keep a lid on the pot. He seems to think that as long as no one shows his cards, he can avoid offending either party reformers or Taiwan independence hardliners. But the truth is the lid can no longer be kept on the pot. The more the DPP refuses to lift the lid, the more difficult it will be to resolve conflicts between these opposing forces. If the DPP waits to long to lift the lid, the bottom of the pot may have already burned through. When that happens, the blame will fall on Su Tseng-chang. Therefore Su's best strategy is to simply let go. He should turn over reform to party insiders who will subject the issues to democratic debate. He should submit the issues to the judgment of the public. He may wish to assume the role of a midwife. Whether the child is a boy or a girl will be determined through democratic debate within the party. The result may even be decided through a democratic vote within the party. Su Tseng-chang may be able to seize the high ground. He may be able to defuse the most controversial reform since the founding of the party. Will this be a crisis or an opportunity for Su Tseng-chang? That will depend on his political vision.

Anyone who has ever boiled water knows that once it comes to a boil, the lid must be removed. It must be allowed to boil from three to five minutes. This will enable to the chloroform to evaporate, leaving one with a pot of pure water. Su Tseng-chang's responsibility is to open the lid and let the chloroform boil away.

Su and Hsieh have long-standing grievances. But Su and Hsieh have an opportunity to join hands and rewrite history. But the opportunity is fleeting. They can hardly be "in no hurry." Will the two help each other, or will they hurt each other. Will both end up as losers? This will all be decided in a fleeting moment.

貞昌如何接謝長廷這一球
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.18

謝長廷訪陸歸來,面見蘇貞昌,分享心得。會畢,謝長廷說,「未來的兩岸政策,還是必須由蘇主席決定。」蘇貞昌則說:「設置中國事務委員會的事,不急。」謝長廷把球揮進蘇貞昌這一邊,現在要看蘇貞昌如何接球。

暫且回到一九九九年至二○○○年之交。陳水扁以明日之星的姿態,聲勢蒸騰,已成代表民進黨角逐總統寶座的不二人選;在黨主席林義雄的主導下,民進黨通過了《台灣前途決議文》,遮蓋了《台獨黨綱》,為陳水扁競選總統之路作好鋪墊。此一重大政治工程的關鍵人物是林義雄,他具備兩大條件:一、德望兼備;二、最重要的是,他自己不選總統。

如今,面對二○一六總統大選,民進黨之必須轉型,迫切性尤甚於二○○○年。然而,「未來的兩岸政策,還是必須由蘇主席決定」,但蘇主席也正是二○一六年總統大位的有意問鼎者;這卻是與二○○○年大異其趣之處,蘇貞昌自己站上了當年林義雄的位置。

蘇貞昌競選黨主席之時,引發的主要爭論即是,黨主席若亦有意競逐總統,勢必不利轉型工程;這卻正是當前已經驗證的情勢。為了自己要角逐總統,蘇貞昌必須在「獨派」與「轉型派」之間計算自己的支持度,因此左顧右盼,不能大開大闔地推動轉型工程。反之,倘若由一位不參選總統者擔任主導轉型的操作手,即有可能大刀闊斧;因為,他只須考慮如何為黨打開出路,作球給參選總統者,不必顧慮自己在派系之間的支持度;這就是當年的林義雄,卻不是今日的蘇貞昌。

然而,除非蘇貞昌已決定要逃避及放棄轉型工程,眼前所見,謝長廷幾乎是他唯一的,且錯過即不可能再有的政治槓桿。因為,民進黨今日要談轉型工程,至少必須體現四個原理:一、要居高臨下,由上而下,例如,由黨中央發動大辯論。二、要大轉彎,立即從陳水扁時代的「正名制憲」徹底轉出來,不能再玩「和而不同/和而求同」或「超越」那類空洞的文字遊戲。三、要有一些戲劇性,這樣的大轉彎,若無戲劇化的大動作,恐怕辦不到。四、要有一個具備相當資望者,作為領銜主演的台柱,否則撐不住場面。

眼前所見,謝長廷至少是符合了其中三項原理的人選:他的轉彎夠大,大到「憲法一中」;他的「調酒之旅」夠戲劇性,一舉敲開了中南海的大門;他的唱作俱佳,足堪挑起大樑。如今謝長廷唯一缺的是蘇主席的支持,倘若蘇貞昌任命謝長廷為中國事務委員會主任委員,謝就取得了「由上而下」的勢位,轉型工程即可啟動。

蘇貞昌應知,在此際出任黨主席,帶領民進黨轉型其實是他的「天職」;而此時站在他面前的謝長廷,正是不作第二人想的最佳槓桿。如果蘇貞昌放棄了謝長廷,一方面必不可能找到更佳的轉型操作手,另一方面尤會被視為逃避「天職」。倘係如此,後續的效應可能是:一、民進黨轉型遲誤的責任,必指向蘇貞昌,無可逃逭。二、蘇貞昌在黨內及民間將被視為轉型的擋路石,恐對其參選總統不利;何況,將也阻擋不住蔡英文若與謝長廷合流,佔據轉型號召,直至兩年後奪下黨中央。

也就是說,蘇貞昌若不接謝長廷這一球,於黨於己皆可能將有不易收拾的後果。然而,蘇貞昌將當前情勢看成「不急」,其實主要是顧慮若處理不當,會影響他在二○一六的選情。如何寬釋蘇貞昌的心結,謝長廷似可盡些心力。或許,謝長廷可向蘇貞昌示意,若出掌中國事務委員會主委,操持轉型工程,自己將不參加二○一六年總統、副總統的競逐,也不在民進黨各組候選人中選邊站,以示轉型工程是為了民進黨及台灣的前途計,不可涉入黨內權力的競逐。這樣的宣示,不僅是為了重建謝長廷與蘇貞昌及蔡英文之間的關係,也是謝長廷若欲成為轉型總工程師所必須持守的超然立場;也許,蘇貞昌如今正在等謝長廷的這句話。如若不然,竟將轉型捲入黨內政爭,即是自甘下流,不足論矣。

然而,關鍵仍在蘇貞昌。蘇現在有一個大盲點,他似乎認為,必須把沸騰的鍋蓋壓住;只要不攤牌,他就不會開罪「轉型派」,也不會得罪「獨派」。但是,眼前所見,這只鍋蓋根本已經壓不住了;愈不掀鍋,雙方的矛盾分裂就愈難化解,待等到已來不及掀鍋蓋時,鍋底可能已經燒穿,到時候責任還是要算到蘇貞昌的頭上。所以,蘇現在的最佳策略應是放空自己,將轉型議題交由黨內進行徹底的民主辯論,並訴諸全國民意;他不妨以產婆的角色自命,生男生女,則由黨內民主辯論,甚至由黨內的民主投票決定。如此,蘇貞昌始有可能搶佔制高點,並為化解此次建黨以來最嚴峻的轉型爭議盡其「天職」。這是蘇貞昌的危機或轉機,決定於他的政治視野。

煮開水者皆知,沸騰後必須掀開壺蓋,然後再聽其無蓋沸騰三、五分鐘,使內含三氯甲烷揮發,即可得一壺淨水。蘇貞昌此時的責任,就是打開壺蓋,煮去三氯甲烷。

蘇謝之間久有心結。但眼前已然出現了蘇謝可能攜手改寫歷史的契機,卻是稍縱即逝,不能「不急」;究竟二人將是相得益彰或兩敗俱傷,似均繫乎一念之間。
         

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Washington: Returning to My Home vs. Returning to My Brother's Home

Washington: Returning to My Home vs. Returning to My Brother's Home
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 18, 2012


Summary: Washington has expressed enthusiastic approval of Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland. But it seems unsure about future developments. The "differences" Frank Hsieh spoke of are the differences between the two side of the Taiwan Strait. These cross-Strait differences must be dealt with. Hsieh must undergo an acid test. He must deal with internal dissent within the DPP. He must deal with differences between the DPP and KMT. This will be a key indicator as Washington monitors the repercussions of Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland. 

Full Text below:

Former Premier Frank Hsieh wiped away tears during his visit to his ancestors' graves on Xiamen's Dongshan Island. He met with Beijing's State Council for Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi, ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin, and State Councilor Dai Bingguo. On the surface at least, Washington was delighted with what it saw.

But US government officials had feelings they were not at liberty to express. These are often expressed on their behalf by US think tank scholars. These scholars include Director Richard Bush of the Brookings Institute Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, and senior researcher Kenneth Lieberthal. Former Premier Frank Hsieh visited the Chinese mainland. In their opinion, Frank Hsieh's visit was a good thing, both for Washington and for Beijing. It contributed to mutual understanding among political parties across the Taiwan Strait.

Frank Hsieh has spun his visit to the Chinese mainland as a case of "despite countless obstacles, I shall persevere." But as Washington sees it, Frank Hsieh's visit the Chinese mainland means just one thing. A great debate within the DPP regarding the party's view of the Chinese mainland is about to begin.

In this great debate US scholars believe that to achieve victory in the upcoming elections, different voices will make themselves heard within the DPP. These voices must subject themselves to scrutiny by the Taiwan public. For the DPP, the emergence of different opinions will bolster Taiwan's party politics. Washington has long been highly supportive of democracy on Taiwan. But Chen Shui-bian's eight years in office raise concerns about another ruling party change on Taiwan. Will the DPP's policy toward "China" and other nations once again provoke Beijing? Will it make waves in the currently calm waters of cross-Strait relations? Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland has touched off a massive debate regarding the DPP's attitude toward Mainland China. Naturally the United States welcomes this.

This is why the American Institute in Taiwan Taipei Office Chief Christopher J. Marut welcomed Frank Hsieh's visit to the Chinese mainland. During the 2012 Republic of China presidential election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed that the ROC is an important security partner and economic partner. Washington sent senior officials to Taiwan. They announced that the ROC was a candidate for the US visa waiver program. They showed goodwill towards the Ma Ying-jeou administration. Conversely, U.S. National Security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, when interviewed by the London Financial Times, questioned DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen's ability to handle cross-Strait affairs. As a result DPP relations with Washington reached a new low. It is easy to see that Washington is deeply concerned about the ability of political parties on Taiwan to deal with cross-Strait relations. This is something the Democratic Progressive Party, which longs to return to power, cannot ignore.

The CCP understands the situation. The goal of its negotiations is to lock in a peace agreement and lock in the political status of Taiwan. This will be a long, drawn out process. Relying exclusively on the KMT is not enough. It must also obtain the support of the DPP.  Washington's response to these developments is not yet clear. US officials have commented on certain subtle differences. When former Vice President Lien Chan first arrived on the Chinese mainland, he spoke of "returning home." When Frank Hsieh arrived on the Chinese mainland he spoke of "returning to my brother's home." The fact that US officials are noticing such fine distinctions reveals their deep concern about the impact of Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland.

Beijing allowed Frank Hsieh to visit the Mainland without preconditions. Washington has concluded that Beijing has a deeper understanding of Taiwan's internal affairs. It has concluded from Beijing's policies that it has greater ambitions toward Taiwan. These powerful ambitions are reflected in Beijing's desire to establish a channel of communication with DPP in the event it returns to power. The KMT and the CCP have already established channels for communication. But Beijing knows that changes in the ruling party are the norm on Taiwan. That is why it has decided to increase exchanges with the DPP. Conversely, even if the KMT remains in power long term, Beijing does not want the DPP enagaging in obstructionism whenever it attempts to communicate with the KMT. Risk management is the best way to establish an effective channel of communication with the DPP.

Scholars in the US are generally in agreement. The CCP is gradually learning how to deal with the major political parties on Taiwan. For example, Kenneth Lieberthal thinks Beijing wants to better understand democratic politics on Taiwan. That is why it has decided to establish relations with a wide range of political forces on Taiwan. Political parties on both sides of the Strait must seek mutual understanding. This will enable the Mainland to better grasp the political ecology on Taiwan. This will lead to more effective policies toward Taiwan.

When Frank Hsieh was on the Mainland, he said both sides must "confront their differences, deal with their differences, and transcend their differences." Hsieh met with State Council Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi. Hsieh said he did not think that the term "1992 consensus" was ever used. He proposed alternatives, either "different constitutions, different interpretations," or "constitutional consensus." These remarks disturbed Su Tseng-chang. The KMT was also dissatisfied. No wonder Su Tseng-chang insisted that Hsieh's visit to the Mainland was merely a private visit, and not an official DPP/CCP event. Consider the Kuomintang's perspective. The "1992 consensus" has undergone trial by fire -- the election process. Beijing has long emphasized actual strength. Will Hsieh be able to rally the troops on Taiwan? One can be sure it has made its own assessments.

So far, Washington has expressed enthusiastic approval of Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland. But it seems unsure about future developments. The "differences" Frank Hsieh spoke of are the differences between the two side of the Taiwan Strait. These cross-Strait differences must be dealt with. Hsieh must undergo an acid test. He must deal with internal dissent within the DPP. He must deal with differences between the DPP and KMT. This will be a key indicator as Washington monitors the repercussions of Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland. 

美國注目:「回家」VS.「回到兄弟的家」
    2012-10-18
    中國時報

 從廈門東山島祭祖拭淚開始,前行政院長謝長廷大陸行一路會見中共國台辦主任王毅、大陸海協會長陳雲林、國務委員戴秉國,至少從表面上看,美國是看在眼裡,樂在心裡。

 美國政府官員不便表達的意見,常常由美國智庫學者代為表達。美國布魯金斯研究院東北亞研究所主任卜睿哲和該所資深研究員李侃如,針對前行政院長謝長廷訪問中國大陸一事,分別從美國和大陸觀點分析,認為謝長廷大陸行是件好事,有利兩岸政黨的相互瞭解。

 謝長廷自己對大陸行的自我定位頗有「雖千萬人吾往矣」的氣魄。但是,在美國看來,謝長廷訪問大陸反映出一件事,那就是民進黨內部定位中國大陸的大論戰即將展開。

 在這場可能的大論戰中,美方學者認為,為了在未來選舉中爭取勝選機會,民進黨內各種不同聲音自會百花齊放,而同時也會面對台灣社會的審視。對民進黨來說,有不同的選擇方案有助強化台灣的政黨政治。美國一向對台灣的民主持高度肯定態度,但是陳水扁八年執政的經驗卻也令其擔心若是台灣再度政黨輪替,民進黨的「中國」政策與外交政策不無可能再次挑戰大陸,讓目前平穩的兩岸關係平地生波。如今,謝長廷訪問大陸若引發大規模辯論,重行定位中國大陸,自為美國所歡迎。

 這也正是美國在台協會(AIT)台北辦事處長馬啟思為何對謝長廷訪陸表示歡迎的主要原因。華府在二○一二年中華民國總統大選期間透過國務卿希拉蕊強調台灣是美國「重要安全與經濟夥伴」、派遣高級官員訪台、宣布台灣為「免簽證計畫」候選國,對馬英九政府展現善意,另一方面,美國國安顧問多尼隆(Thomas E. Donilon)又透過倫敦《金融時報》質疑民進黨總統候選人蔡英文處理兩岸事務的能力,讓民進黨與美國的關係一時間跌入谷底。不難看出美國對台灣政黨處理兩岸關係的能力高度關注,這是有意再度執政的民進黨不能視而不見的。

 此外,中共也非常瞭解,如果將談判目標鎖定在和平協議和台灣的政治地位,這是一個長期的過程,單靠國民黨是不夠的,而必須取得民進黨的支持。針對這些可能的發展,美方的立場尚未明朗,惟從美方官員四處打聽前副總統連戰首次登陸時稱是「回家」與謝長廷訪陸時稱是「回到兄弟的家」之間有何微妙的差異,可以確定美國對謝長廷訪陸的衝擊的確保持高度關切。

 大陸同意在沒有預設立場的前提下安排謝長廷訪陸,美國方面據此認為北京對台灣內政已有更深一層的認識,並在未來對台政策上展現出更大的企圖心,而此一強大的企圖心反映在大陸強烈希望與民進黨在重返執政前建立一個溝通管道上。儘管國民黨和北京有較多的聯繫管道,但大陸瞭解政黨輪替將是台灣政壇常態之後,決定與民進黨擴大交流。另一方面,即使國民黨長期執政,北京也不希望與國民黨交流的同時,民進黨老是在一旁掣肘。而風險管控的最好方法就是與民進黨建立一個有效的溝通管道。

 美國學者普遍認為,中共在處理台灣主要政黨關係的手法日益圓融。例如,李侃如認為,正因北京瞭解台灣的民主政治,所以決定廣泛與台灣政治勢力建立關係。兩岸政黨相互瞭解,大陸將更能掌握台灣政治生態,有助未來長期對台政策上擬定更有效的作法。

 謝長廷在大陸指出,兩岸都必須「面對差異、處理差異、超越差異」。會見國台辦主任王毅時,他表示,他不認為有「九二共識」這四個字,他提出的替代方案是「憲法各表」或「憲法共識」。這番談話既讓蘇貞昌不安,也讓國民黨不滿。難怪蘇貞昌在接受訪問時要表示謝的訪陸只是私人行程,非關民共平台。就國民黨來說,「九二共識」畢竟是歷經選戰試煉。至於北京則一向注重實力原則,對於謝在台灣政壇能否掀起千層浪並趁勢而起,自會有準確的評估與對應之道。

 至目前為止,美國對謝長廷訪陸抱持高度的肯定態度,但對未來的可能發展似乎還無法掌握。謝長廷的「差異說」談的是兩岸差異,不過,在處理兩岸差異之前,謝的考驗是處理民進黨的內部差異,以及民、國兩黨間差異的能耐,這自然是美國觀察謝長廷訪陸後續效應的指標。

        

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Three Points in Time: Changes in Beijing's Policy Toward Taipei

Three Points in Time: Changes in Beijing's Policy Toward Taipei
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2012


Summary: DPP leader Frank Hsieh visited the Chinese mainland as Chairman of the Taiwan Restoration Foundation. He met with important figures responsible for Taiwan policy, including Wang Yi, Chen Yunlin, and Dai Bingguo. This broke new ground for public meetings between Beijing officialdom and DPP leaders. Have the DPP and CCP begun initiated a new mode of interaction? Will it affect the three way dynamics between the KMT, DPP, and CCP? Will it impact Taiwan policy following the 18th National Congress?

Full Text below:

Beijing has celebrated its long October 1st National Day holiday and is counting down to its 18th National Congress. For the CCP, this is an important moment. DPP leader Frank Hsieh visited the Chinese mainland as Chairman of the Taiwan Restoration Foundation. He met with important figures responsible for Taiwan policy, including Wang Yi, Chen Yunlin, and Dai Bingguo. This broke new ground for public meetings between Beijing officialdom and DPP leaders. Have the DPP and CCP begun initiated a new mode of interaction? Will it affect the three way dynamics between the KMT, DPP, and CCP? Will it impact Taiwan policy following the 18th National Congress? Everyone is asking these questions.

This is a critical moment for the Mainland authorities. They allowed Frank Hsieh to attend the International Bartenders Association as a private citizen. That has a number of implications for its Taiwan policy.

One. It shows how confident the Mainland authorities are about their Taiwan policy. Beijing officials responsible for Taiwan policy know that a vast chasm separates the DPP and CCP on matters of politics and sovereignty. The long National Day holiday and upcoming 18th National Congress make this a politically sensitive moment. Nevertheless they allowed a DPP leader to visit. They gave him the red carpet treatment. They extended him every courtesy. This shows that the two parties have an understanding. Beijing is using the occasion to underscore its growing confidence in its Taiwan policy. It does not think the visit will result in nasty surprises that someone will have to answer for.

Two. This shows the Mainland authorities' resolve regarding its Taiwan policy. Beijing insists that cross-Strait party to party exchanges must be predicated upon the 1992 consensus and opposition to Taiwan independence. Hsieh entered through Xiamen. He was greeted at the airport, whisked off to Beijing, where he met with officials responsible for Taiwan policy. During his visit Beijing treated him like a government official and not like a private citizen. They never mentioned either party's offiical titles. They never mentioned that he might meet with Jia Qinglin, a Standing Member of the Political Bureau.

Beijing has taken a firm stand on inter-party interaction. But it also knows it must offer hope to the public on Taiwan. It knows it cannot avoid the 40% of voters who support the DPP. It knows the ruling party on Taiwan could change. Four years ago, the "Hu Six Points" noted that "Those who once advocated, enaged in, and followed Taiwan independence, are welcome to return to the fold, move in the right direction, and promote the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations." Contrast this with the first three generations of CCP leaders. During Hu Jintao's term of office the two sides established direct cross-Strait links. They established a dialogue between the KMT and CCP. Now interaction between the CCP and Green camp politicians has begun. This can only be characterized as a milestone.

Three. This underscores the Mainland authorities' flexibility regarding Taiwan policy. The DPP and CCP share no common ground on the one China principle. Beijing considers Frank Hsieh's "two constitutions, different interpretations" unacceptable. But it is willing to set aside Point Four of the Hu Six Points. It is attempting to divide the Green camp by courting "progressive elements." It has long been impatient with the KMT's hesitancy on cross-Strait political issues. It used Frank Hsieh's visit to the Mainland. It gave him VIP treatment. It used the occasion to underscore increasing flexibility in its Taiwan policy. Consider Beijing's Taiwan policy. What Beijing objects to most vehemently is the DPP's repeated attempts to promote de-Sinicization, cultural Taiwan independence, and de jure Taiwan independence. Frank Hsieh's first stop was Fujian, where he paid his respects to his forebears. He revealed how he felt. He stressed that "[The two sides] cannot merely seek common ground while shelving differences. They must address and transcend their differences. This will require patience and mutual trust." Hsieh even advocated "two constitutions, different interpretations." To some extent he echoed Jia Qinglin's "The two sides are honoring existing provisions." This being the case, the two sides may have established some degree of trust and understanding.

Frank Hsieh met with Wang Yi, Chen Yunlin, and Dai Bingguo. What they talked about is not that important. After all, this was not a formal talk. This was not a party-to-party dialogue. Outside observers focused on how the DPP and CCP related to each other. Will this continue? Will this develop into something more? Will it affect the three way dynamic between the KMT, DPP, and CCP? These are all worthwhile questions.

Fourth and finally, the Chinese Communist Party is about to convene its 18th National Congress. What will its policy toward Taiwan be? Everyone on Taiwan should be concerned. First of all, the 18th Party Congress Political Report represents the Party's direction and principles. Thousands of words will be devoted to Taiwan policy. Will the 1992 consensus appear in this year's government work report and political report? Secondly, two sessions will be held in the spring of next year. The CCP's highest Taiwan policy body is the Central Government's Taiwan Affairs Leadership Group. The group leader is Xi Jinping. He is both deputy chief and a group member. These and other Taiwan policy positions are currently being determined. When they are, Beijing's policy toward Taiwan will become clear. Thirdly, Xi Jinping will soon assume power. On the one hand, he will follow Hu Jintao's established practices and guidelines. On the other hand, he must change with the times and find his own style of decision making. Xi Jinping will soon assume power. He will review the results of current Taiwan policy. The results of the 2016 general election will be an important criterion in his decision. In 2017 the CCP will convene its 19th National Congress. What will the outcome of the 2016 general election on Taiwan be? Regardless of what it is, the CCP will want to ensure cross-Strait peace. This will naturally become the top priority for new and old Taiwan policy makers alike. Beijing gave Frank Hsieh the red carpet treatment during his visit to the Chinese mainland. The CPP 18th National Congress will focus on the above as it determines the Mainland's policy toward Taiwan.

三個時間點 觀察大陸對台政策變化
    2012-10-17
    中國時報

 北京在十一國慶長假與中共「十八大」召開進入倒數計時的重要時刻,讓民進黨重量級政治人物謝長廷以「台灣維新基金會」董事長的名義登陸,並安排與王毅、陳雲林、戴秉國等涉台重要人物見面,這不僅創下北京高層公開與民進黨重量級人士會面的先例,民共的互動交流是否藉此開啟新模式,以及,國、民、共三方互動,乃至十八大後中共對台政策的可能作為等,在在都引發各界的高度關注。

 在這關鍵性的敏感時刻,北京讓謝長廷以參加國際調酒協會的個人身分登陸,凸顯其現階段在對台政策上具有下列的意涵:

 首先是展現了對台工作高度的自信。北京涉台系統明知民、共兩黨的政治與主權主張存有高度歧見,卻敢在國慶長假與十八大即將召開的政治敏感時刻,邀請民進黨籍重量級人士到訪,並拉高層級、給予公開禮遇與接待,顯示雙方已具有若干程度的互諒;此外,北京也藉此凸顯對台政策上的日益自信,不太擔心行程中有意外變數發生,以致有人必須為此負責。

 其次是體現對台工作立場原則的堅定性。對於兩岸黨對黨的交流與對話,北京堅持以「九二共識」與「反對台獨」為前提。因此謝從廈門入境、接機到北京與涉台領導人見面,所有在大陸的行程,北京都是以政府官方名義接待謝的個人參訪,絕不提及雙方黨的頭銜,更遑論可能會見政治局常委賈慶林。

 但雖然北京對於黨際互動交流的立場堅定,卻也深知要貫徹「寄希望於台灣人民」,就不可能不與擁有四成以上選票的民進黨打交道,更何況未來台灣也有政黨輪替的可能。事實上,早在四年前提出的「胡六點」中的第四點就強調,「對於那些曾經主張過、從事過、追隨過台獨的人,也歡迎他們回到推動兩岸關係和平發展的正確方向上來」。是以,相較於前三代領導人,胡錦濤任內不僅實現了兩岸的直接三通,開啟了國共黨對黨的對話,如今也開啟了與泛綠政治人物的互動,這不能不說是一個歷史性的里程碑。

 再則是凸顯對台工作策略的靈活性。雖然民共對於一中原則尚無交集,謝長廷的「憲法各表」也非北京所能接受。但無論就胡六點的第四點主張,抑或區隔泛綠陣營以爭取所謂的「進步力量」,乃至於對國民黨長期以來對於兩岸政治議題裹足不前的不耐,藉由謝長廷的登陸並給予高規格禮遇與接待,更凸顯北京對台政策的日趨靈活彈性。就北京對台政策認知而言,其對於民進黨最為不滿的乃在於其認為民進黨一再實行「去中國化」,藉由「文化台獨」走向「法理台獨」。當謝長廷首站到福建尋根祭祖時,自然流露情感,強調兩岸「不能只是求同存異,應面對、處理及超越差異,並有耐心和互信」;乃至謝主張的「憲法各表」與賈慶林的「兩岸從各自現行規定出發」,都有若干共通之處。如此,雙方也算是有了初步的互信與互諒。

 因而,謝長廷見王毅、陳雲林與戴秉國時談什麼倒不是關鍵,畢竟這不是正式會談也非黨對黨的對話。外界關注的是此次所開啟的民、共交流另類新模式,往後何以為繼、發展?其對日後國、民、共三方的互動又有何影響等。俱為值得持續觀察的議題。

 最後,面對中共「十八大」召開與對台政策,台灣各界應該高度關注:第一,「十八大」代表黨的路線方針的〈政治報告〉中,占有千字篇幅的對台政策主要內容為何(如九二共識是否繼今年見諸於政府工作報告後也列入政治報告中)?第二,明年春天兩會召開,中共對台最高決策機構─中央對台工作領導小組(組長習近平與副組長暨小組成員)等涉台人事的布局底定,政策也將日趨明朗。第三,習近平主政後,一方面秉持「胡規習隨」的政策方針,另一方面也必須與時俱進並體現個人決策風格。我們認為,在習近平主政後初步對台政策的成果驗收,將以二○一六年台灣的大選結果作為重要判準,因為二○一七年中共即將召開「十九大」。但不論二○一六年台灣大選選舉的結果如何,確保台海的和平發展格局尚不致生變,這也自然成為北京新、舊領導人推動對台政策的重中之重。觀諸北京此次接待謝長廷登陸行的態度與十八大後的對台政策,仍將在貫徹與落實北京的此一重點工作。
        

KMT: Holding the Line Will Merely Ensure One's Defeat

KMT: Holding the Line Will Merely Ensure One's Defeat
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 16, 2012


Summary: Democratic Progressive Party members are experienced political fighters. Mainland policy is their Achilles Heel. They must overcome that Achilles Heel. If they cannot, the giant boulder blocking their return to power will remain in place, forever. Frank Hsieh has made his move in this chess game. The DPP is set to transform itself. The KMT is already on the side of expanded exchanges with the Chinese mainland. What reason does it have to assume such a timid posture? Holding the line will merely ensure one's defeat.

Full Text below:

Former Premier and former DPP Chairman Frank Hsieh concluded his "trail-blazing journey" to the Chinese mainland. He characterized his visit as a personal visit. But it will have political and economic repercussions. What repercussions will it have within the DPP? Many people are asking this question. What impact will Frank Hsieh's trip have on the KMT, which has spared no effort to expand cross-Strait relations? That too is worth watching.

Nineteeen years ago, Frank Hsieh led a delegation to Xiamen. Accompanying him were Taiwan independence hardliners Trong Chai, Yao Chia-wen, and others. When Taipei and Beijing allowed people on each side to visit relatives on the other side, opposition DPP members visiting the Chinese mainland far outnumbered ruling KMT members. Cross-Strait exchanges had yet to be politicized. It had yet to be linked to Chinese reunification vs. Taiwan independence ideology. That changed with President Lee Teng-hui's trip to Cornell. His "one country on each side thesis" froze cross-Strait relations. Taiwan independence consciousness underwent a quantum leap. Politicians exploited the issue to win votes. The epithet "mai tai ji tuan" (group that is selling out Taiwan) became a new way to accuse someone of being a "Communist sympathizer." The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years. President Chen Shui-bian won the approval of moderate and swing voters. But during his eight years in power, whenever an election rolled around, reunification vs. independence and "ethnic group" (social group) rhetoric filled the air. Countless heavyweight Blue Camp political leaders were smeared as "Communists" by means of DPP propaganda. Frank Hsieh wept upon seeing his ancestors' burial sites. He met with Dai Bingguo, Beijing's Secretary-General for the Steering Group for Taiwan. Afterwards he could not resist patting himself on the back for not permitting himself to be "used." On the one hand, the Blue camp said it was only too happy to see him succeed. But in fact Blue camp leaders found it difficult to remain at ease.

Politics after all, is not deception. Wherever one goes, one leaves a trail. Frank Hsieh is pragmatic and flexible. He understands political reality and political power. He is all too clear on the pros and cons of straying from the beaten path. No one will ever forget his broadcasts on Green camp pirate radio stations. He blasted the Ma administration's cross-strait economic and trade policies. He said they would leave "workers on Taiwan unable to find work, and women on Taiwan unable to find husbands." The Hsieh faction in the legislature did everything in its power to prevent the government from recognizing Mainland student academic credentials. Many KMT party and government officials watched from the sidelines as Frank Hsieh arrived on the Mainland. They wiated to see how the Democratic Progressive Party would rationalize its past rhetoric about "Communist sympathizers."

The growth of democracy on Taiwan means an end to wild charges about "Communist sympathizers." That is a positive development. Only then can we liberate cross-Strait relations from the shackles of ideology. Only then can we courageously advance for the benefit of the people. The Ma administration has been in office for over four years. It has devoted most of its energy to Mainland policy. It has broken through the ice accumulated during 12 years under Lee Teng-hui. But it has always left people with the impression that it is timid, that it is only taking half a step when it should be taking a full step forward. For example, Mainland academic credentials were recognized only after two fist fights and three years of delay in the legislature. Conditional NHI coverage for Mainland students is still under discussion. Don't even bring up Mainland investments on Taiwan, and the huge impact they might have. The administration has opened up in form but not in substance.

The two sides have engaged in cross-Strait exchanges for over two decades. Beijing once had high hopes for Lee Teng-hui. It had high hopes for the Democratic Progressive Party. But in the end it was KMT Honorary Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party Chairman James Soong who first visited the Mainland to rebuild trust. Frank Hsieh's visit was nominally private. But Beijing gave him the red carpet treatment. It is testing the waters with the DPP. Beijing now understands how democracy on Taiwan operates. The ruling party may change, therefore they cannot limit their dealings to the KMT. Naturally they do not want cross-Strait relations to regress as a result of changes in the ruling party. But they must consider the possibilty of the KMT once again losing power. They must learn to cope. This is good news for cross-Strait interaction. This is a warning to the KMT, which is currently in power and has a strong desire to remain in power.

The CCP 18th National Congress will soon convene. Yet the CCP played host to Frank Hsieh. This shows how confident Beijing is about its Taiwan policy. By contrast, the first thing the Ma administration did was to change its cabinet heads charged wtih Mainland relations and with national security. The general evaluation of the new cabinet has been poor. It exhibits scant evidence of strong goal orientation. The economic picture at home and abroad is grim. Merely holding the line may not be a smart move. It may be a very bad move. The public will not tolerate a lack of achievements during the Ma administration's second term. A stagnant situation will only turn public opinion against the government. It will lead to a change of heart. The DPP will with little effort on its part be back on the road to power.

Given the political spectrum on Taiwan, the differences between the KMT and the DPP are not that great. One party opposes Taiwan independence. The other opposes China's reunification. The bottom line is both want to maintain the political status quo. The DPP hammered away at KMT leaders, accusing them of being Communist sympathizers. KMT leaders appear to have internalized this unearned guilt. The DPP holds high the banner of Taiwan independence, reassuring itself that it is applying the brakes in cross-Strait relations. Therefore when the brakes start to act up, the KMT no longer knows how to position itself. It must define itself more clearly. It has been blindsided. Frank Hsieh took one small step for a man. That may or may not be one giant leap for the DPP. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang currently wields power. He has yet to make his move. But the vast majority of Democratic Progressive Party members are experienced political fighters. Mainland policy is their Achilles Heel. They must overcome that Achilles Heel. If they cannot, the giant boulder blocking their return to power will remain in place, forever. Frank Hsieh has made his move in this chess game. The DPP is set to transform itself. The KMT is already on the side of expanded exchanges with the Chinese mainland. What reason does it have to assume such a timid posture? Holding the line will merely ensure one's defeat.

國民黨守成 就等於棄子求敗
    2012-10-16
    中國時報

 前行政院長、民進黨前主席謝長廷日前結束大陸的「開展之旅」,儘管他以私人行程定位這次訪問,但以其政治經歷和影響力,未來在民進黨內會激起何種效應,仍引起相當矚目;而謝長廷之行對開展兩岸關係不遺餘力的國民黨而言,更值得注意。

 謝長廷早在十九年前即曾帶隊參訪廈門,同行人士還包括獨派人士蔡同榮、姚嘉文等人,事實上,當年兩岸開放探親交流後,在野政黨登陸者遠多過執政的國民黨人士,兩岸交流沒牽涉太多的統獨意識形態,直到前總統李登輝美國康乃爾之行後,引爆一邊一國論,兩岸關係降到冰點,台獨意識一躍而成為政客攫取選票的工具,「賣台集團」甚至成為政壇新興紅帽子;民進黨執政八年,儘管前總統陳水扁以中間路線得到中間選民的肯定,但任內八年每遇選舉必操作統獨與族群議題,數得出來的藍營重量級政治領袖,無不被民進黨奉送過這頂紅帽子,莫怪當謝長廷祭祖熱淚盈眶,與大陸對台工作指導小組祕書長戴秉國會面後,難掩得意神色且善意表明自己沒被「消費」的同時,藍營人士一方面對謝此行表示樂觀其成,但實際上又很難平心靜氣看待。

 政治終究不是詐術,凡走過必留下痕跡,謝長廷在民進黨內是務實派的彈性人物,在現實與權力之間,他太清楚從俗或走人跡罕至之路的優劣點,沒有人會忘記他在綠色電台,以「查甫找嘸工,查某找嘸尪」嚴詞批評馬政府的兩岸經貿政策,而民進黨內所謂的「謝系子弟兵」們,又如何在立法院傾全力阻擋陸生學歷認證等重大政策,領受過太多頂紅帽子的國民黨黨政要員們,冷眼旁觀謝長廷登陸之舉的同時,也等著看未來民進黨如何收回這些紅帽子。

 當然,就台灣民主政治的發展,紅帽子不再亂飛畢竟是一件健康而正面的事,唯其如此,兩岸關係才能跳脫意識形態的桎梏,朝著對人民有利的大方向勇敢邁進。馬政府執政四年多,在大陸政策上著力最深,也有效突破自李登輝執政末期即冰凝十數年的兩岸關係,但始終予人「該進一步只走半步」的保守之感,比方說,大陸學歷認證硬是在立法院打兩架拖三年才通過,而陸生能在一定條件下納入健保,此刻還在討論研議中,甭提影響更巨的開放陸資來台,只做到了形式開放而無實際效益。

 兩岸開放交流廿多年來,北京曾對李登輝寄予厚望,亦曾對執政的民進黨抱持希望,最後還是在國民黨榮譽主席連戰與親民黨主席宋楚瑜先後訪問大陸後,重建信賴關係,這一次,大陸方面以相對高規格接待謝長廷的「私人行程」,既是對民進黨試水溫,也透露北京已然認清台灣民主政治的本質,既然政黨可能不斷輪替,則他們需要打交道的對象就不能只局限於國民黨,他們當然不希望更趨頻密的兩岸關係因為政黨輪替再次產生逆流,他們必須評估國民黨再次失去政權的可能和因應方案,這對兩岸互動當然是正面訊息,但對目前執政且有強烈企圖要維繫政權的國民黨而言,不能不說是一種警訊。

 中共十八大換屆前,從容接待謝長廷,看得出北京對台政策的穩定和信心,相對的,馬政府先一步更迭國安大陸人事,一般評價偏弱,看不出強烈的企圖心;然而,在國內外經濟局勢皆沉悶的當下,守成絕對不是上招,反而可能成為下策,因為民意不會容許馬政府在第二任繳出空白成績單,停滯不前只會讓民意求變之心更切,屆時,民進黨不必費力就能踏上重返執政的最後一哩路。

 台灣的政治光譜中,國、民兩黨其實差異並不這麼大,一個是不獨,一個是不統,根柢裡在政治上都是維持現狀,但對民進黨硬栽上的傾中紅帽子,國民黨似乎也漸漸信以為真,甚至對民進黨高舉台獨大旗也自我安慰是「兩岸關係的剎車皮」,於是,當剎車皮可能出現轉變時,國民黨似乎對該如何自我定位、做出更明確的區隔,顯得措手不及;謝長廷的第一步,未必是民進黨的一大步,畢竟此刻掌黨權的黨主席蘇貞昌尚未出招,但絕大多數民進黨人已經體會在爭取執政權上,大陸政策就是他們的罩門,罩門打不開,重返執政的大石頭就永遠擺在那兒,這局棋已由謝長廷開始啟動;民進黨要變,已經站在開放這一邊的國民黨豈能守成、甚至形同棄子求敗?