Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Nuclear-Free Taiwan: Blackouts Will Be a Fact of Life

Nuclear-Free Taiwan: Blackouts Will Be a Fact of Life
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 30, 2014


Summary: Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.

Full text below:

Those who demand a nuclear-free Taiwan assure us that even after nuclear power generation is abolished we will still have abundant electricity. They assure us that blackouts are merely boogeymen invented by advocates of nuclear power. When it was still unclear whether advocates of a nuclear-free Taiwan would emerge victorious, they could get away with all sorts of irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims. But now advocates of a nuclear free Taiwan have come into their own, As a result, they can no longer get away with irresponsible claims. All consumers must confront the prospect of power shortages and blackouts without advanced warning. Otherwise when electricity is essential but unavailable, any crisis could mean life vs. death.

Power supply stability on Taiwan once ranked among the highest in the world at nearly 99%. This was because the government promoted economic growth. It pursued a policy of "if power is needed, power will be provided." Many needs were provided by Taipower, a state owned enterprise. But 20 years ago, Taiwan began liberalizing the electrical power industry. It authorized the construction of private sector electrical power plants. Later, environmental awareness, global warming, calls for a nuclear free homeland, the rejection of coal, and the insistence on gas burning electrical power plants, led to incremental deterioration of the power grid and eventual crisis.

A stable power supply must meet three criteria. One. Its power supply must be adequate. This includes it total installed capacity and spinning reserve ratio. Two. The power supply must be reliable and schedulable. Three. The power supply must be high quality. The voltage must be stable. If power supply stability decreases, the impact will be serious. Taiwan's economy is highly dependent on heavy industry, the chemical industry, and energy-intensive industry. Taiwan society requires electricity to keep its communications and transportation systems, life support systems, disaster prevention systems, and medical care systems functioning. Blackouts would affect all of these as well.

Taiwan's biggest crisis is power grid deterioration . It is severely deficient in base load capacity, and the situation is getting worse. If Taiwan goes nuclear-free and rejects the use of coal, its situation will be even more difficult. The problem is not confined to power capacity. Power quality is also an issue.

Taiwan's independent power grid makes it more difficult to maintain a stable power supply. This is true for nuclear, coal, gas, oil, and gas fired base load capacity. Installed capacity must to reach at least 60% to support system operation. Low cost fuel power generation capacity exceeds nuclear and coal-fired units as a proportion of installed capacity. They are the backbone of the power system. Eliminate nuclear power plants and coal-fired units. Replace them with high priced gas powered plants, and the system will lose money as fast as it generates electricity. It will also take at least a decade to build gas-fired power plants and relay stations. They will not be able to fill the gap left by nuclear free, coal free power generation.

Contrast this with Fukushima Japan, which was struck by nuclear disaster. Anti-nuclear sentiment led to a zero tolerance policy toward nuclear power generation. But during a recent cabinet meeting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promoted a safe nuclear power plant policy, on the grounds that "nuclear power is important for base load capacity." Japan was unable to bear three years and 220 billion USD in gas costs and the associated trade deficits. Taiwan wants to go nuclear free immediately. Even Japan could not afford to do so. How can Taiwan?

Even currently, coal-fired power remains the mainstay of the power grid. It provides northern Taiwan with 43% of its electricity. But many plants are in south-central Taiwan. This makes them difficult to maintain. An accident to a transmission tower, and a unexpected power outage is certain. If Taiwan goes nuclear free, new units at Linkou, Hsiehho, Shenau, and Tatan are bound to encounter more local resistance and difficulties with EIAs, making the situation even worse.

If we leave aside capital costs, gas-fired units could theoretically fill the power gap. But the international natural gas market is severely strained. Demand on Taiwan is rising. Qatar, Indonesia, and Malaysia, account for more than 80% of the procurement structure. Political instability in these countries has long been a concern. The chance that gas may become unavailable continues to increase. Some hope that U.S. shale gas can fill the gap. But this must await the relaxation of export policy, the construction of port liquefaction equipment, and even the completion of Panama Canal widening. How can this possibly be achieved in the short term?

Deterioration of the power grid will affect scheduling and lead to power outages. Voltage instability also presents a problem. In particular, the high-tech industries which account for most of our exports, require a high degree of voltage stability. Voltage instability has a significant impact on equipment and production capacity. Taiwan's high-tech industry has traditionally been able to attract investments, largely due to high quality power supplies.

Power grid deterioration will lead to more than just increased power outages. Life support systems will also be affected. Drinking water, beginning with source water, water purification, pressurized water, and ending up as tap water, depends on electricity. A given amount of water requires a given amount of electricity. Put simply, the production cost of drinking water is not confined to the water supply. Power shortages can affect sewage treatment, pumping, silt removal, and drainage. Every  one of these processes requires power.

If the information and communications system is under attack, it will impact our daily lives. ATMs cannot dispense cash to debit card holders. Convenience store logistics, cash flow glitches, mean they will no longer be able to serve you. Airport e-tickets cannot be scanned. Passengers will not be able to board their planes. People will be more than just inconvenienced. Some impacts could cost people their lives. Oxygen supplies for critically ill hospital patients could be interrupted due to power outages. Surgeries could be interrupted mid way by sudden power failures. Disaster monitoring systems could be thrown off by unstable power supplies The impacts are difficult to predict.

We may choose to hold a referendum. We may choose to mothball nuclear power plants. Either way, these are serious decisions. One must give them serious consideration. Whatever we decide, we are the ones who will have to bear the consequences.

非核之後,供電不穩恐將成事實
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.30 01:58 am

主張非核的人士聲稱廢核之後電仍一定夠,「停電」只是擁核人士的恐嚇;這樣的說詞,在非核機率未明顯勝出之際,可以不必舉證、不負責任,但非核主張成了氣 候,有可能實現之際,就再不能信口雌黃,隨便說說。所有用電戶都得正視供電穩定度降低、無預警停電機率增加的事實,否則到時要電沒電,恐還有「要命」的危 機。

台灣過去的供電穩定度全球名列前茅,幾乎達百分之九十九,原因是政府發展經濟、追求成長的能源「以需定供」政策,有多少需求,就要求屬國營事業的台電來配 合。但從二十年前開始推動電業自由化、開放民營電廠設置,之後因環保意識、地球暖化危機,非核、拒絕燃煤、只要燃氣電廠,造成電力系統一步步地劣化,逐漸 步入險境。

供電穩定涵蓋三個層面,其一、供電量是否足夠?牽涉到總裝置容量、備轉容量率;二、可靠度、調度能力;三、供電品質,電壓穩定與否。如果供電穩定度降低, 影響所及絕不只是台灣經濟高度仰賴的重化產業、能源密集產業,甚且維繫社會運作的資通、維生、防災、醫療等系統都將受到波及。

台灣電力系統眼前最大危機是電力系統劣化,嚴重基載不足,且日趨惡化的走勢,在非核、拒絕燃煤電廠後,更將陷於難以穩定運轉局面;而且不止供電量有問題,供電品質也將面臨挑戰。

以台灣獨立電網的不利環境,要維持供電穩定,包括核能、燃煤、燃氣、燃油、汽電共生的基載電力,裝置容量至少要達到百分之六十才能支撐系統運作,尤其是燃 料成本低、發電量超過裝置容量占比的核能及燃煤機組,更是電力系統的骨幹;剔除核能、燃煤機組,改以高單價的燃氣電廠取代,系統將是「發一度、賠一度」; 而需時至少十年的燃氣電廠和接收站建置,根本補不上立即非核、棄煤的電力缺口。

對照遭福島核災重擊的日本,高漲的反核氣氛造成「零核」局面,但首相安倍晉三日前在內閣會議做成推動安全核電廠再運轉政策,理由是「核能發電是重要的基載電源」;三年兩千兩百億美元的燃氣支出和連帶的貿易逆差,日本撐不下去。台灣想要立即非核,難道「日本不能、台灣能」?

即使以目前核能、燃煤仍是供電主力的電力結構,應付台灣北部百分之四十三的高用電比率、電廠卻多在中南部的局面,維持得已很辛苦,萬一輸配電系統有閃失, 迴路上一個鐵塔遭天災損壞,無預警斷電幾乎是必然;非核之後,若林口、協和、深澳、大潭等新增機組因為環評及地方阻力致進度不如預期,局面一定更糟。

不計算成本,理論上燃氣機組是可以補上電力缺口,但問題是國際天然氣市場高度緊繃,台灣的需求又快速攀升,而且以目前對卡達、印尼、馬來西亞三國超過八成 的採購結構,供氣國政治不安定一直是隱憂,買不到氣的危機不斷升高;至於寄望美國頁岩氣補上,須等該國出口政策放寬,港口液化設備建置,甚至還要等巴拿馬 運河拓寬竣工,短期內豈可能實現?

電力結構劣化一定會影響調度,缺電之外,電壓不穩定也是問題,尤其出口主力的高科技業者對電壓穩定的要求極高,如果電壓不穩,對設備、產能都有很大的影響。過去台灣能吸引高科技業來投資,很重要的誘因是供電品質高。

系統劣化後不止缺電機率大增,維生系統的其他因子也同遭衝擊。以飲用水為例,從原水、淨水、加壓給水到水龍頭上水,「一度水、一度電」簡單說明飲用水的生產成本;不止上水,缺電後下水處理也受影響,揚水、沉泥、排水……,每個過程都需要動力。

資通系統受到衝擊,必將影響日常生活,例如帶著提款卡出門櫃員機卻不吐鈔,便利商店的物流、金流當機,暫時不能當你的好鄰居;機場電子機票讀不出來,不能 報到登機……。生活層面的影響還只是不方便,另些影響才真「要命」,例如醫院重症病患的氧氣供應因停電而中斷,手術做到一半突然斷電;又如防災監測系統敏 銳的儀器因供電不穩而失準,影響都極難估計。

公投也好,封存也罷,茲事體大,不能不認真思考,做成決定就得承擔! 


Monday, April 28, 2014

Asia Must Take Mainland China's Rise More Seriously

Asia Must Take Mainland China's Rise More Seriously
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 29, 2014


Summary: The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.

Full text below:

U.S. President Barack Obama is conducting a major tour of Asia. He has visited Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines. He is putting on a major diplomatic show. In his manner and his words, he is seeking to underscore the importance of the Asian-Pacific region to the US government. He is saying that the US government still maintains considerable influence in the region. Nevertheless, the situation has obviously changed.

The visit may be eventful and exciting. But behind Obama's visit to Asia, is a record of lackluster diplomatic achievements. US global influence has declined. In the past the US government could rely on its political, economic, and military might to exert a major influence on global affairs. But in recent years the situation has changed. Economic decline has led to huge cuts in US military and diplomatic budgets. The public is weary of foreign wars, The US government can no longer play the role of world policeman.

Consider the many international disputes in the world today. The US government can deal with them. But only with help from foreign governments. Since taking office, Obama has offered no grand strategy for US foreign policy. Instead, his priority was to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US government has no solution for long-simmering issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. North Korea is getting close to making a nuclear bomb. But the US government can do nothing.

Consider some newer issues that the US government has mismanaged. The US was marginalized during the turmoil of the Arab Spring. Pro-American strongmen such as Hosni Mubarak fell. Obama dared not intervene in the Syrian civil war. Fortunately the Russian government persuaded Syria to abandon its chemical weapons program. Currently Ukraine is in chaos. Obama has no intention of engaging in a shooting war with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He could not even if he wanted to. All he can do is discuss sanctions with EU members. Putin has reacted to these sanctions with contempt. Mainland China's power has grown significantly. Disputes between Mainland China and Japan over territorial sovereignty and World War II have become increasingly acute. Sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea are heating up as well. U.S. forces in the Asian region face increasingly serious threats.

To avoid being ejected from Asia by Mainland China, Obama has resorted to "re-balancing." He has re-directed U.S. attention toward the Asian-Pacific region. HIs visit to Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines, encircled the Chinese mainland. Such a political move is not hard to understand. One. It sends a message to Mainland China. It says that the US government remains a powerful force in the Asian-Pacific region. Two. It strengthens relations with other Asian-Pacific governments. Three. It attempts to expedite the Trans-Pacific Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP), opening doors for American products. It also creates a trade bloc directed against Mainland China.

During Obama's first stop, he gave Japan a major gift. He publicly declared that the US-Japan Security Treaty covers the Diaoyutai Islands. He also expressed concern over Mainland China's unilaterally declared East China Sea air defense identification zone. This failed to persuade Japan to compromise on the TPP however. Negotiations continued until the last minute, when a Joint Communique was reluctantly released. Obama left empty-handed. Upon reaching Korea, Obama promptly blasted Japan's human rights violations against comfort women. He retaliated against the Japanese government and expressed solidarity with South Korea.

Obama's main task in South Korea was to strengthen the ROK-US alliance. It was to exchange views with South Korean President Park Geun-hye over the North Korean nuclear situation and the Northeast Asian strategic scenario. It was to discuss economic matters such as Korean participation in the TPP, and the implementation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. The US government also wants to postpone the transfer of wartime operational control to the South Korean government.

The last time a U.S. president visited Malaysia was in 1966. Since then nearly half a century has passed. This reveals the degree to which the United States has neglected Malaysia. Obama hopes to use the visit to cultivate relations with the Malaysian government. He also hopes to highlight friendly and cooperative relations with a moderate Muslim country. Malaysia is not especially eager to join the TPP. Obama personally lobbied Malaysia. The two sides will conduct follow-up consultations on their agreements. The last leg of the visit was the Philippines. Obama has long indicated that the United States would return to Asia. Besides TPP negotiations, he specifically discussed increasing U.S. troop deployments in the Philippines.

Several governments, including the Japanese government, the Malaysian government, and the Philippine government, have grievances with China over the Diaoyutai Islands, WWII, and the South China Sea. Relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Japanese government, and relations between the Mainland Chinese government and the Philippine government have deteriorated. Obama's visit was clearly intended to prevent China from taking stronger action. The declaration of the East China Sea air defense identification zone has the US and other governments worried about a South China Sea air defense identification zone. They hope to block Chinese stealth expansion in the South China Sea.

But China remains the largest force in the region. It has close relations with all neighboring countries. These countries may want United States government backing on individual disputes, but only as protection and as a bargaining chip. They still hope to develop friendly relations with Mainland China and to seek out trade opportunities. If the US wants to use force to suppress Mainland China, the only willing ally is Japan.

The Chinese mainland has risen. The situation in Asia is bound to undergo gradual but fundamental changes. The governments of the United States, Mainland China, and other neigbors, including Taiwan, must consider their responses. How can they create a new relationship conducive to the interests of everyone. The US and China need not to return to Cold War era containment. They can cooperate and coexist amidst competitive wrangling. Obama has completed his visit to Asia. It is time the affected parties ponder the issues.

社論-亞洲應更慎重面對中國崛起
2014年04月29日 04:09 中國時報 本報訊

美國總統歐巴馬的亞洲行正盛大進行中,走訪了日本、韓國、馬來西亞和菲律賓。這是一場大動作的外交秀,以姿態與言語力圖彰顯美國對亞太的重視,以及宣示美國在此區依然保有強大的影響力,但顯然局勢已經改變了。

雖然行程風光熱鬧,但歐巴馬這趟來亞洲的背景,卻是上任以來外交成績乏善可陳、美國全球影響力下滑的窘境。以往美國挾其政經軍力量,可以很大程度左右全球事務;但近年來情勢丕變,美國經濟衰退大刪軍事外交預算,民心厭倦海外戰事,已無力支應一個強悍的世界警察角色。

放眼當前多項重要國際紛爭,美國不是拿不出辦法來,就是需要其他國家奧援。歐巴馬上任以來對美國的外交政策並無大戰略,反而把從伊拉克、阿富汗撤軍作為首要工作。長年問題諸如以巴之爭,美國仍然喬不出個解決辦法,對離成功做出核彈愈來愈接近的北韓,也完全無能為力。

至於新的問題,美國也應對得左支右絀。不但在阿拉伯之春動盪中處於邊緣地位,原本親美的埃及穆巴拉克等強人還垮台。敘利亞內戰歐巴馬根本不敢介入,幸而俄羅斯斡旋出了敘國政府放棄化武的方案。現在烏克蘭又出事,歐巴馬無意也無力為此和俄國總統普丁開火,只能和歐盟國家研商一些普丁根本沒看在眼裡的制裁措施。而隨著中國大陸國力大幅增長,中日主權與二戰紛爭日趨尖銳,南海主權之爭也方興未艾,美國在亞洲的勢力版圖更嚴重受到威脅。

為了避免勢力被中國踢出亞洲,歐巴馬祭出「再平衡」策略,重新強調美國對亞太的關注。這次他訪問日、韓、馬、菲,繞著中國大陸走了一圈,這樣的政治動作相當容易理解,一來向中國發出「美國還是亞太強大勢力」的訊息,二來強化與亞太國家的關係,三來希望跨太平洋經濟夥伴協定(TPP)早日獲得成果,替美國產品打開方便門,也對抗以中國大陸為核心的自貿區塊。

歐巴馬第一站就給日本送上大禮,公開宣示釣魚台屬於美日安保條約範圍,並對中國大陸片面宣布東海防空識別區表達關切。不過,這並沒有換來日本在TPP的讓步,聯合公報甚至談判到最後一刻才勉強出爐。空手離去的歐巴馬,到了韓國立即痛批日本的慰安婦制度侵犯人權,既回敬日本一記,也對韓國表達道義相挺。

歐巴馬在南韓的主要任務是強化韓美同盟、與南韓總統朴槿惠對北韓核武及東北亞局勢交換意見,經貿方面則是談韓國參與TPP以及落實韓美自由貿易協定的問題,另外美方還想把戰時作戰指揮權移交給南韓的時間再延後。

上次美國總統訪問馬來西亞,是在1966年,近半世紀以來都未再到訪,足見馬來西亞被美國忽略的程度。歐巴馬希望能藉著這趟訪問經營與馬國的關係,也凸顯與溫和派穆斯林國家的友好合作。馬國對TPP態度並不積極,在歐巴馬的親自遊說下,雙方後續會就協定內容展開磋商。至於最後一站菲律賓,歐巴馬除了一貫作出美國重返亞洲的政治動作、磋商TPP外,也會具體討論增加美軍在菲國輪替兵力。

這幾個國家裡,日、馬、菲與中國之間有釣魚台、南海與二戰歷史恩怨的齟齬,日本和菲律賓近來與中國更是關係惡化,歐巴馬此行確實有阻擋中國採取進一步強勢作為的意思。尤其繼東海防空識別區後,美國對涉及更多國家的南海防空識別區十分關切,希望能在南海營造攔阻中國擴張之隱形陣線。

不過,中國大陸是區域最大勢力,與鄰國各項交流合作都很密切,相關國家即使希望在個別爭執議題上有美國當後盾,但那只是作為保護與談判籌碼,各國仍然希望能與中國大陸發展友好關係並爭取經貿商機。美國如果想強力壓制中國大陸,將會發現願聯手的盟國可能只有日本。

隨著中國大陸的崛起茁壯,亞太局勢必然逐漸出現根本性的變化,美、中及周邊相關國家,包括台灣,都必須及早思考因應,為未來營造一個最有利於各方利益的新互動關係。不需要再回到冷戰的圍堵狀態,美中也未必不能在競爭角力中尋求合作共存模式。歐巴馬走完亞洲這一圈,有些課題,值得各方開始深思籌謀了。

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence

Sunflower Student Movement: Leftist Taiwan Independence
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 28, 2014


Summary: Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path. But if the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.

Full text below:

Several Sunflower Student Movement leaders have publicly declared, "I advocate Taiwan independence." They have also described themselves as "leftist advocates of Taiwan independence." For them, Taiwan independence is their political path. Leftism is their socio-economic path.

Taiwan independence and social reform were once the DPP's two pillars. In recent years, a new generation has assumed the mantle of "leftist Taiwan independence" and attempted to formulate a theoretical rationale for their belief system. During the 2012 election, Tsai Ing-wen advocated "approaching [Mainland] China via the world," and "globalization without [Mainland] China." She also advocated a "high degree of social welfare" and a "local economy." She advocated a "leftist Taiwan independence" theoretical framework. We labeled her path "Taiwan independence welfare statism."

But Tsai's leftist socio-economic path is fundamentally at odds with her Taiwan independence political path. Taiwan independence cannot coexist alongside cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Therefore it rejects globalization a survival strategy. But such a political and economic framework cannot afford the high cost of environmental protection and social welfare. Still less can it afford to reduce wealth inequality.

One cannot implement Taiwan independence without a Closed Door Policy. That is why Taiwan independence must oppose globalization. Taiwan independence rooted in a Closed Door Policy will never be able to afford the cost of a welfare state. Leftist commitment to the welfare state, conversely, can only lead to loss of support for Taiwan independence. The two are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist. Therefore this check is one that must eventually bounce.

Consider the Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence. Most members of the Sunflower Student Movement are not Taiwan independence advocates. It is merely their leaders who have declared their support for Taiwan independence. Their leaders support the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." Basically they hope to hijack the government in order to implement a Taiwan independence oriented cross-Strait policy. 

The Sunflower Student Movement's brand of Taiwan independence apparently does not seek to establish a "Republic of Taiwan." Instead it attempts to implement "one nation on each side," by "backdoor listing" the ROC. Taiwan independence opposition to the STA is hardly surprising. The STA improves cross-Strait economic and trade relations. It pushes Taiwan closer to globalization. This is detrimental to Taiwan independence. Conversely, those who are genuine about the ROC political path, tend to support cross-Strait economic exchanges. They support using the outcome of globalization to control cross-Strait relations. The anti-STA protests led to the "Articles Pertaining to the Concluding of Cross-Strait Agreements." This made it abundantly clear that the protests were actually Taiwan independence protests led by the oligarchs of the student movement.

Now consider the Sunflower Student Movement's leftism. The central figures in the recent student movement were all familiar faces, invariably in attendence during recent social movements. They opposed Guoguang Petrochemical. They opposed the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. They opposed Wenlin Yuan. They opposed Ta Pu, they opposed the relocation of the Tainan railway. They opposed the STA. They opposed globalization. They stressed generational deprivation and inequality. Such are the leftist elements in their agenda. On the one hand they have used draconian environmental standards to challenge the economic model. To wit, the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. On the other hand they have stressed individual rights over community aspirations, To wit, Wenlin Yuan. Will this leftist political protest against STA, against liberalization, and against globalization, prevent Taipei from joining the TPP and RCEP? Will it force Taiwan to pay 5 to 10% more in tariffs than 90% of its competitors in the export market? This is a question these leftists have no desire to confront and answer. Leftists don't care if Taiwan businesses are unable to compete with Korea in ramen noodle sales in Britain.

Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may oppose the STA. They may use the Articles Pertaining to the Concludiing of Cross-Strait Agreements to repudiate ECFA in toto. But leftist advocates of Taiwan independence must not prevent Taipei from joining the TPP, RCEP and other major FTAs. Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence may reject globalization. But they cannot prevent globalization. When 90% of Taiwan's exports are subject to 10% tariffs, when Taiwan is totally marginalized by globalization, how will Leftist advocates of Taiwan independence pay for high environmental protection standards, high-wage standards, and Taiwan independence welfare statism? The fact is, when Taiwan is marginalized by globalization, it will be even more dependent on trade with Mainland China.

Therefore, "leftist Taiwan independence" is merely a political patchwork quilt, one that attempts to add a moral sheen to Taiwan independence. In fact, it is a self-refuting paradox. The more leftist it is, the less it will be able to afford Taiwan independence. The more committed to Taiwan independence it is, the less it will be able to afford leftist policies. In reality, a Taiwan independence welfare state is an impossible utopia.

The more fundamental problem is that leftism and Taiwan independence are usually nothing more than political bargaining chips. The person holding them knows they are no solution to the problems. They merely use them to incite mob sentiment. In 2008, when Tsai Ing-wen led the anti-ECFA protests, she was engaging in classic "leftist Taiwan independence." But by the time of the 2012 election, she was forced to eat her words, and adopt unconditionally the very same Ma administration "crapper" policies she previously denounced as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," and "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Tsai thought she could create a "local economy" out of nothing. But take a look at the Mainland tourists at the night market in Kaohsiung. What part of that represents is a "local economy," and what part of that represents "cross-Strait economic and trade relations?" Students can play trendy "leftist Taiwan independence" games. But can Tsai Ing-wen pretend not to know better?

If the student movement leaders realize that a genuine commitment to the ROC is Taiwan's only way out, they should hold a protest march demanding that the Legislative Yuan pass a "market price real estate tax assessment bill." That might actually win praise from leftists.

評太陽花的「左派台獨」
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.28 03:04 am

幾名太陽花學運領袖公開宣示「我主張台灣獨立」,並自稱是「左派台獨」。其中,「台獨」是政治路線,「左派」是社經路線。

「台獨」加「社運」,原本即是民進黨的兩大支柱;近年,新世代將之冠上「左派台獨」的封號,並嘗試將之理論化。蔡英文在二○一二年大選時,一方面主張「由世界走向中國」、「擺脫中國的全球化」,另一方面又主張「高社會福利」、「在地經濟」,即是呈現「左派台獨」的理論架構,當時我們稱之為「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」。

然而,「左派」的社經路線與「台獨」的政治路線,卻存在著基本的矛盾。因為,台獨主張壓抑兩岸經貿關係,因而亦形同否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略;這樣的政經架構,如何能夠支撐其高環保、高社會福利的社經承諾,更如何改善貧富不均的分配問題?

可以斷言,鎖國的台獨(不鎖國,就不能台獨,所以台獨必須反全球化)不可能具有撐持福利國家的社經實力;因為,「左派」的高福利國家承諾只會使「台獨」更失去支撐條件,二者只會相剋,不能相成,因而此承諾終究必成虛妄。

先看太陽花的「台獨」。太陽花學運的多數群眾皆不是台獨,但領袖階層多自我表白為台獨,至提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》,不啻要挾制政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策。

太陽花的台獨,應當不是「建立台灣共和國」的台獨,而是「一邊一國」,以中華民國來「借殼上市」的台獨。台獨反服貿是合於邏輯的,因為服貿會使兩岸經貿關係更緊密,亦進一步把台灣推向全球化,不利台獨。反之,若在政治上主張「真正中華民國路線」,則傾向支持兩岸經貿交流,並進而以全球化的成果來節制兩岸關係。所以,這場「反服貿風暴」,從《兩岸協定締結條例》的提出,可以清楚看見這其實是一場學運寡頭操作的台獨風暴。

再看太陽花的「左派」。這場學運的核心人物皆是近年社運場合無役不與的面孔,反國光石化、反核四、反文林苑、反大埔、反台南鐵路東移、反服貿、反全球化,強調世代剝奪及貧富差距;這些都是「左派」的元素,一方面以高環保來質疑經濟模式(核四),另一方面又以凸出個人權益來壓制社區發展的期待(文林苑)。如果這場反服貿的反自由化、反全球化的「左派風暴」破滅了台灣加入TPP及RCEP的憧憬,實則將迫使台灣在九成以上的出口市場中較競爭者多付五%至十%的關稅;然而,這似乎不是「左派」想要面對及回答的問題。「左派」當然也不在意台灣的泡麵在英國賣不過韓國!

「左派台獨」可以抵制服貿協議,甚至可以用《兩岸協定締結條例》否決整個ECFA架構;但是「左派台獨」不可能讓TPP及RCEP等巨型FTA簽不成。也就是「左派台獨」可以拒絕全球化,但絕無可能阻擋全球化。那麼,當台灣在九成出口市場要多付十%關稅,當台灣因全球化而被徹底邊緣化後,「左派台獨」用什麼條件來支撐它所承諾的高環保、高工資、高社會福利的「社會主義台獨福利國家路線」?其實,當台灣在全球化中被邊緣化後,結果必然是在經貿上更依賴中國大陸。

所以,「左派台獨」只是一個政治上的技術性拼湊,試圖為「台獨」抹上一層道德胭脂,其實卻是一個相互自噬的悖論:亦即,愈「左派」愈支撐不起「台獨」;愈「台獨」也愈支撐不起「左派」。在現實中,恐無可能出現「社會主義台獨福利國家」這樣的烏托邦。

更根本的問題是:「左派」與「台獨」往往只是政治運動的「籌碼」;操作者明知這不是解決問題的方法,卻用它來煽動仇恨鬥爭的情緒。蔡英文在二○○八年領導反ECFA,即是「左派台獨」的經典之作;但到了二○一二年大選,她卻概括承受了這套「傾中賣台/喪權辱國」的「馬桶政策」。至於蔡英文認為「在地經濟」似乎可以「無中生有」,但看看高雄六合夜市的陸客,那該叫做「在地經濟」或「兩岸經貿」?學生可以玩弄「左派台獨」的時髦,但蔡英文豈能不知其中的虛無?

如果學運領袖能夠領略「真正的中華民國路線」是台灣唯一的生路,則發動一場催促立法院通過「不動產實價課稅」的大遊行,那也許才真有幾分「左派」的丰采。

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected

Thinking May Be Emancipated, but Authority Cannot be Totally Rejected
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 25, 2014


Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out. Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.

Full text below: 
 
The Sunflower Student Movement is a major event in Taiwan's history. Will history judge this student movement favorably? That is harder to say. Which stimuli, positive and negative, did this student movement introduce to society on Taiwan? That may take time to sort out.

The Sunflower Student Movement highlighted the creativity and vitality of young people. They set up a live webcams at the protest sites. They used a variety of Internet tools to promote their beliefs. They used a variety of images, catchphrases, and sketches to incite passions and influence public perceptions. They initiated discussions debating the future of the movement and the nation. During the "da cang hua forum" that took place near the end of the student movement, young people engaged in untrammeled challenges to authority.

From one perspective, the Sunflower Student Movement's freedom and lack of restraint was a positive influence on Taiwan society. Chinese society has long been conservative, with a intense patriarchal flavor. Even after the transition to democracy on Taiwan, adult authority remains strong. During public debates and decision-making, people of different social status should be able to engage in dialogues among equals. But this remains more ideal than reality. The student movement challenged the authority of the "adult world." It transformed the STA, a boring trade issue. All of a sudden, government propaganda became the common concern of Everyman. Many more were able to join the debate and be heard. Despite numerous fallacies and prejudices, the student movemetn played a role in emancipating the public and challenging the government's long-held monopoly on political discourse. In this sense, the Sunflower Student Movement was both valuable and significant.

In fact, opposition to authority has long been the defining characteristic of student movements. During the previous century, China's May Fourth Movement opposed both foreign aggressors and domestic traitors. It was anti-imperialist, patriotic, and dedicated to saving the nation. The New Culture Movement was imbued with a strong anti-feudal, anti-traditional, anti-authoritarian flavor as well. Its animating spirit was "reevaluate all values."

During the 1960s, student movements in Europe and Japan were also imbued with a strong anti-authoritarian flavor. As pundits have noted, Western capitalist society underwent severe changes following World War II. Changes took place in the traditional family system, in ethics, and in value systems. Lifestyles and the educational system fell under the sway of bureaucrats and plutocrats. They even served the military-industrial complex. Young people felt alienated from the system. A new youth culture and identity arose. Rebeling against authority and against the establishment became part of the younger generation's collective identity. This expressed itself not just in the student movement, but in music, movies, and other aspects of life.

Such revolts against authority however, always have limits. No social system can avoid all authority. Otherwise it will have difficulty functioning. And if young people "revaluate all values" and do "whatever they damn well please," there will be serious consequences for youth, for the nation, and for society as a whole. That is not necessarily a positive development.

In fact, 140 years ago, Marxists and other anti-capitalists revolted against capitalist authority. They engaged in a major debate with anarchists, who advocated absolute freedom. Socialist theoretician Friedrich Engels discussed the issue at great length. Engels stated his position clearly. He said authority refers to the will of others, imposed on us. On the other hand, authority is a prerequisite to submission. Therefore we have a problem. Is there any social system that can do without such relationships? Can authority become something meaningless, that disappears?

The answer of course is no. Engels cited the example of railways and shipwrecks. He pointed out that for a railway to run smoothly, cooperation among countless people is essential. To avoid mishaps, cooperation must follow an exact timetable. This requires a will able to handle every problem, in charge of everything. In other words, a clear authority. When a shipwreck occurrs, during an emergency situation, to save lives, people must immediately obey the will of a sing person. This requires absolute authority.

The reason is simple. It has to do with life. Authority may sometimes be annoying, and freedom is of course appealing. But the answer lies in between. This is not a question of choosing A or B. Young people will soon be leaving the campus. They will soon be entering society. Young people may become part of a business. They may become part of the public sector. They may become SOHO types, or small business owners. As long as people need to engage in production, or engage in labor, they will not be able to do whatever they damn well please. They will have to abide by certain norms. These include the legal system and commercial contracts. They will have to subordinate themselves to this or that authority. Too much freedom and the first person hurt will not others, but those young people who reject all authority.

From the individual level to the national level, the autonomy and freedom of the ROC is everyones' goal. But deeper understanding, mastering the norms of international order and reality, are basic skills necessary to preserve a nation's freedom and undependence, In international relations, one can never do whatever one damn well pleases. Only a clear understanding of the international order and its limits, will enable one to maximize one's living space.

Young people in the pursuit of individual autonomy and state autonomy must understand the relationship between freedom and authority. Only then can Taiwan's well-being be preserved.

思想可以解放 權威不能全然否定
2014年04月25日中國時報

太陽花學運當然會是台灣歷史上一件大事,歷史會怎麼評價這場學運,其實還難論定,這場學運究竟帶給台灣社會哪些正面與負面的衝擊與刺激,也需要相當時間的觀察。

太陽花學運確實展現了年輕人的創意與活力,他們架起了網路現場實況轉播,他們善用各種網路工作宣揚理念,他們活用各種影像、詞語、繪畫來渲染情緒,影響社會大眾的視聽,他們發展各種討論,辯論運動和國家的未來,學運結束前後的「大腸花論壇」,也可以看到青年們百無禁忌、挑戰各種權威的自由與奔放。

從某個角度來說,太陽花學運展現的自由與奔放,對台灣社會有一定的正面作用,華人社會向來保守,有著濃厚的家父長制色彩,即使在台灣這個歷經民主化轉型的社會,「大人」的權威仍然相當強固,在公共事務的討論與決策上,不同社會位置的人相互「平等對話」始終還只是理想。學運學生以自己的強力行動,挑戰了「大人世界」的權威,讓服貿這種生冷的議題,一下子從政府高官上對下的「宣導」,轉變為庶民共同關心的話題,也讓更多民間的聲音能夠進入討論領域,即使中間存在許多謬誤與偏見,但是在一定程度上確實起到了「思想解放」的作用,甚至大大挑戰了政府、政黨長期壟斷的話語權,太陽花學運在這些方面,確實有其價值與意義。

其實,「反權威」可以說是歷來學生運動的基本性格。上個世紀中國的五四運動,就直接的起源而言,固然是「外抗強權、內除國賊」的反帝、愛國、救亡等訴求,但是其前後的新文化運動,卻有著濃烈的反封建、反傳統、反權威色彩,「重估一切價值」被認為是運動的核心精神。

1960年代從歐美到日本等地的學生運動,也有著強烈的「反權威」色彩,論者指出,由於第二次世界大戰後西方資本主義社會的劇烈變遷,傳統的家庭制度、倫理與價值觀、生活方式以及教育制度的官僚化、財閥化,甚至赤裸地為軍事工業綜合體服務,使得青年對體制感到疏離,逐漸形成新的青年文化與認同,反叛權威、反抗體制成了青年世代的集體認同,除了展現在學生運動上,更展現在音樂、電影、生活方式等各方面。

然而,這種對於「權威」的反抗,始終有其限度,而任何社會制度大概都無法避免存在某種程度的「權威」,否則就難以運行。而青年們如果從「重估一切價值」,走向了「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」,往往會產生極其嚴重的負面效應,對於青年、對於整個國家社會,都未必是正面而積極的。

其實,早在140多年前,當反抗「資本主義權威」的馬克思主義者和同樣反對資本主義,卻崇尚絕對自由的無政府主義者在進行大論辯時,社會主義的理論家恩格斯早就認真討論過這個問題了。恩格斯說得很清楚,如果「權威是指把別人的意志強加於我們;另一方面,權威又是以服從為前提的」,那麼,我們就面臨一個問題:有沒有任何社會制度中「可以不要這種關係」,「使這個權威成為沒有意義的東西而歸於消失呢」?

答案自然是否定的。恩格斯以鐵路和海難為例,他指出鐵路要運行順暢,「無數人的合作也是絕對必要的;為了避免不幸事故,這種合作必須依照準確規定的時間來進行」,這就需要「一個能處理一切所屬問題的起支配作用的意志」,也就是「表現得很明顯的權威」。至於船難發生時,「在危險關頭,要拯救大家的生命,所有的人就得立即絕對服從一個人的意志」,需要「最專斷的權威」。

道理很簡單,也很生活化。「權威」固然有時令人生厭,「自由」固然相當美好,但是在兩者之間,卻不是零和的二擇一的關係。青年們是要離開校園的,進入社會之後,不管青年們是進入企業、進入公部門,還是成為SOHO族、成為小老闆,只要人們需要從事生產、需要從事勞動,大概都很難真正做到「隨心所欲」,都要遵守一定的規範,不管是法律制度或者是商業契約,也就有服從某一些權威的需要。如果自由過了頭,最先受到傷害的,不是別人,正是那「反抗一切權威」的青年朋友。

再從個人層次衍生到國家層次,台灣的自主、自由當然是人人追求的目標,但是深切了解、掌握國際秩序的規範與現實,卻是國家得以維持某種程度自由、自主的基本功,在國際關係當中,從來沒有「只要我喜歡有什麼不可以」這件事,只有認清國際秩序的限制所在,也才有爭取最大生存空間的可能。

追求個人自主和國家自主的青年人,不能不調整好「自由」與「權威」的關係,如此才真正是台灣之福。

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The Limits of Civil Disobedience

The Limits of Civil Disobedience
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 24, 2014


Summary: Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.

Full text below:

The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. But the social and political movements provoked by the students remain on the ascendant. During the student movement the television cameras captured the naive and uncomplicated expressions of the protesting youths. They also revealed the methodical planning behind the movement. They television cameras forced adults to look upon the students with grudging admiration. They enabled the student movement to win public support and recognition.

The students have dispersed. But the passions surrounding the movement have intensified. Misconceptions about the student movement have shaken the foundations of our social order. It is time to let go of passions, and cooly contemplate the Sunflower phenomenon. If one sits back and allows misconceptions to persist, eventually our government and society will cease to function. This is very worrisome.

Mobs beseiged and occupied government offices. Many people would rationalize away their behavior as "civil disobedience." Civil disobedience has suddenly become a buzz word. Student groups occupied the Legislative Yuan, stormed the Executive Yuan, and eventually laid seige to a police substation. Groups opposed to the construction of windmills occupied the atrium of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Groups opposed to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant began a hunger strike and surrounded the Legislative Yuan. Every one of them invoked the concept of "civil disobedience." Even KMT legislators invoked "civil disobedience" when questioning Premier Chiang. This forced political scientists to offer an impromptu class in remedial political science for legislators.

Can Premier Chiang's interpretation allay legislative doubts? We do not know. But we can be sure that "civil disobedience" rhetoric has already confused many members of the public. This is reminiscent of the STA. Many people have no idea what the STA stands for. Yet they march in lockstep to oppose it. Many people have no idea what the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy is about. Yet they have hurriedly jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. They oppose this. They oppose that. They trample over existing laws. They refuse to abide by the results of legal protocol. Instead, they trot out "civil disobedience" rhetoric to rationalize illegal conduct. Apparently illegal conduct is able to magically seize the moral high ground.

Sunflower student leaders Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were questioned on suspicion of obstructing official business. They surrendered to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office. Their statements brimmed over with boasts that their conduct constituted "civil disobedience." They essentially proclaimed that even if their conduct was unreasonable, disorderly, and illegal, they need merely redefined it as "civil disobedience" in order to escape punishment. They may even be praised as heroes. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting trotted out this high-minded rhetoric. They even argued that their conduct saved constitutional rule and democracy. 

This is truly clever sophistry. Their conduct clearly undermined constitutional rule and democracy. But all they had to do was label it "civil disobedience," and presto, they are instantly transformed into saviors of constitutional rule and democracy. Such useful political rhetoric., They could ignore the rule of law. They could destroy the system. They could do whatever they wanted. Afterwards, all they had to do was to spin their conduct as "civil disobedience." They can then claim without blushing or breathing hard, that they were in fact saving the system, therefore the police cannot arrest them, prosecutors cannot indict them, and judges cannot judge them. If they do, then they are resorting to "state violence" against them.

Is constitutional rule and democracy on today's Taiwan in fact on the brink of a crisis? Has it in fact been brought to the level where it must be saved by the likes of Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting? Can it be saved only by occupying the Legislative Yuan, storming the Executive Yuan, and beseiging a police precinct station? If so, then the 30 years since the lifting of martial law count for nothing. The constitutional reforms, the second change in ruling parties, the praise the nation has earned as an exemplar of third wave democratic transition and consolidation. These and other achievements all count for nothing.

Or perhaps we can pose the question in a different way. Citizens pay taxes and elect legislators. The vast majority of the students have yet to pay any taxes. Yet they occupied the Legislative Yuan for over 20 days. They seriously delayed legislative business. Many major bills affecting the public welfare could not be reviewed, harming the interests of many citizens. Yet the students who occupied the Legislative Yuan declared that by engaging in "civil disobedience," they were saving constitutional rule and democracy. Put bluntly, they, not the taxpayers, are the true "citizens." As for those who choose to obey the system, who pay their taxes according to the law, who voted for the representatives of their choice? Well, tough luck. They probably got what they deserved.

Actually, this is the biggest crisis on Taiwan. Our democracy holds elections. It elects a government and a legislature, according to majority rule. But opposition political parties and groups are unwilling to accept the results. So they use obstructionism and mass movements to overthrow majority rule, and destroy the rules of the game. They euphemistically refer to this as "civil disobedience." They further claim that only they represent the people. Democracy is what they say it is, nothing else. Anything that fails to go their way, is labeled a backroom deal. They have flagrantly destroyed the system, yet blatantly boast that they saved the system.

"On Civil Disobedience" is a famous essay, written in 1894, by famed American author Henry David Thoreau. He was protesting against the Mexican-American War and slavery at the time. He refused to pay the poll tax. He was arrested and imprisoned. Later, during the mid-20th century, African American civil rights leader Martin Luther King protested discriminatory laws and policies against blacks in the southern states.

He too invoked "civil disobedience" during his protests. These examples constitute the true fulfillment of justice. They were not motivated by the desire to benefit a particular political party's private interests.

Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.

社論-公民不服從的界限
2014年04月24日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

太陽花學運雖然已經落幕,學生們激起的社會與政治運動卻方興未艾。學運期間的電視鏡頭前,街頭那些單純而質樸孩子們的臉孔,展現出細膩的規畫力與有條不紊的執行力,莫不讓大人們刮目相看,讓學運贏得國人一定的肯定與支持。

學生已經散去,盤旋上空的激情反而愈繞愈緊,學運傳遞的一些錯誤觀念,正逐漸衝擊維持社會穩定運作的重要基礎。現在應該是放下激情,冷靜思考「太陽花現象」的時機。如果坐視錯誤觀念繼續穿透這個社會,不久以後,整個政府與社會的運作會趨於崩解,我們對此極為憂心。

首先,一些人為了合理化脫序的群眾包圍或占據官署作為,「公民不服從」突然成了流行用語,從學運團體發動占領國會、攻占行政院,到後續衍生的群眾包圍警局,乃至反風車團體占領經濟部中庭,甚至這幾天為反核四所啟動的絕食、包圍立院等,無一不可以扯上「公民不服從」,連國民黨立委都拿「公民不服從」的議題來質詢江揆,逼得這位昔日的政治學者得緊急給立委上課!

江揆的詮釋能否為立委解惑我們不知道,但我們可以確定的是,「公民不服從」語言已經發揮了它應有的混淆效果。這就好像許多人根本還沒搞懂究竟什麼是「服貿」,就跟著反服貿,還未認識「核四」是怎麼回事,就急著跳進來反核四,反來反去,觸犯了一堆現行法,又不甘心接受司法審理,於是,再紛紛搬出「公民不服從」論調,來合理化自己所有的違法行徑。結果,明明是違法脫序的行為,卻彷彿還占據了道德的制高點。

太陽花學運領袖林飛帆和陳為廷,因為涉嫌妨礙公務遭到約談,日前主動前往北檢「自首」,在他們洋洋灑灑的聲明中,即是宣稱他們的一切所作所為,都是依循所謂「公民不服從」的法理。這無異宣稱:就算再不合理的違法脫序行為,只要被界定為「公民不服從」,不僅不應被懲罰,還應該被歌頌才對!林飛帆和陳為廷就是搬出了這個冠冕堂皇的推論前提,進一步宣稱他們所採取的行動,是為了挽救已陷險境的憲政、民主!

這真的是一個高明的詭辯!一樁明明是在破壞憲政、民主的作為,冠上了所謂「公民不服從」的外衣,卻可以立即翻轉為是在挽救憲政與民主!多麼好用的政治修辭,我可以無視法治,我可以破壞體制,我甚至可以為所欲為,只要宣稱我是在踐履「公民不服從」,我可以臉不紅、氣不喘的宣稱我其實是在挽救體制,所以警察不能法辦我,司法更不能審判我,否則就是在對我行使「國家暴力」!

問題是,當前台灣的憲政與民主,真的已經瀕臨到陷入險境,淪落到非得要由林飛帆和陳為廷來挽救的地步?或是非得要占領國會、攻占政院,包圍警局才能挽救的局面?若真是如此,那麼台灣過去30年從解嚴、憲改、兩度政黨輪替,甚至被譽為全球第三波民主轉型與鞏固的模範生,這些林林總總的成就,根本不值一提,是嗎?

或者,容我們換一個方式問:我們合法納稅的公民所選出來的國會,被一群絕大多數尚未納稅的學生占領了20多天,導致立法進度嚴重遲滯,諸多重大民生法案無法完成立法程序,不少公民的權益因此受損,但占領立院的學生卻宣稱,他們是在行使「公民不服從」,他們是在挽救憲政與民主,講得再直白一些,他們才是「公民」,至於那些選擇服從體制,合法納稅,投票選出自己代議士的公民呢?只能自認倒楣,甚至活該嗎?

這其實正是台灣當前最大的危機。我們透過民主的競賽規則,選出一個代表多數民意的政府與國會,在野的政黨與團體不願接受這個結果,於是藉由議事抵制與群眾運動來推翻這個多數,甚至破壞這個競賽規則,還美化稱之其為「公民不服從」,再進一步宣稱只有他們才能代表人民,依他們的意才叫民主,不依他們意就是黑箱,他們明明摧毀了體制,卻還大剌剌宣稱是在挽救體制。

「論公民的不服從」是19世紀的美國著名作家亨利梭羅於1849年所撰寫的一篇短文,他當年是為了抗議美墨戰爭、奴隸制度拒絕付人頭稅,而被逮捕入獄;稍後20世紀中葉的美國黑人民權領袖金恩博士,亦曾為了抗議南部各州歧視黑人的法律與政策,而同樣藉由「公民不服從」的訴求加以抗爭。這些事例之所以會載入史冊,是他們確實是為了踐履某種實質正義,而非為讓特定政黨圖謀一黨之私。

且容我們不客氣的說,如果說「公民不服從」可以被這般的濫用,那我們何需要什麼民主與選舉?何需要什麼恪遵體制?反正贏家勝者全拿,輸家就玩「公民不服從」即可。只不過今日的國民黨被「公民不服從」整得寸步難行,但是政黨輪替後,民進黨就一定不會遭逢「公民不服從」的衝撞嗎?且讓我們拭目以待。

Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Demands Ruling and Opposition Party Cooperation

Fourth Nuclear Power Plant Demands Ruling and Opposition Party Cooperation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 23, 2014


Summary: In 2000, the DPP halted construction. Retired President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng were forced to clean up the mess. Faced with a new Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controvery, the KMT must not forget past experience. Wang Jin-pyng once had to clean up the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant mess, and prevent a "nuclear explosion."

Full text below:

Should construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant be halted? Yesterday Lin Yi-hsiung began fasting in protest. He did not set a time limit. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang shuttled back and forth. He met with Premier Chiang Yi-hua, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin, and New Taipei Mayor Eric Chu. He also expressed a willingness to meet with President Ma Ying-jeou and deal with the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue.

In 1985 the Legislative Yuan Economic Committee approved the budget for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Since then, the ruling and opposition parties have flip-flopped on whether to complete construction. Almost 30 years have passed, but they have still not reached an agreement. In 2011, Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant experienced safety problems. Anti-nuclear sentiment surged. Last year Premier Chiang Yi-hua proposed a public referendum on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. But the ruling and opposition parties in the legislature could not reach an accord. The referendum threshold was too high. Anti-STA protests prolonged the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy. Anti-nuclear sentiment intensified.

Whether to halt construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is actually a multiple choice question, not a true or false question. The question is whether the ruling and opposition parties and the general public can reach an agreement. Are they willing to bear the cost of halting construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant? They will have endure a higher cost of living. Are they willing to tolerate higher prices? Are they prepared to do without the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant? Are they prepared to keep the First, Second, and Third Nuclear Power Plants in service longer than originally planned? Are they prepared to rely on alternative energy sources? We can choose to halt construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Or we can complete construction on it, but not put it into operation. That is a reasonable alternative.

When Su Tseng-chang met Chiang Yi-hua, he made two suggestions. One. The Executive Yuan would announce a halt to the project . Two. It would support the DPP's proposed special regulations for a Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. The Executive Yuan would then announce a halt to the project. Chiang Yi-hua said the Executive Yuan cannot make such a decision by itself. He was correct. This made many people wonder whether Su Tseng-chang made such an illegal suggestion on purpose.

In October 27, 2000, Premier Chang Chun-hsiung announced a halt to the project. The stock market plummeted. The legislature convened an extraordinary session. It invoked the Council of Grand Justices' constitutional interpretation, which explained that an Executive Yuan halt to construction would be illegal. In other words, such an action would have been invalid. This forced the Executive Yuan to announce that it was resuming construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. In other words, the Executive Yuan cannot decide to halt the project.

Does the Executive Yuan support the DPP's proposed special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum? The problem is that the threshold for a public referendum is too high. It has been criticized as a "birdcage" referendum. The DPP wants something similar to the Articles for to the Offshore Islands. It wants to lower the threshold for public referenda. A simple majority vote would decide whether to complete construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Also affected is the threshold for public referenda. In the end, just how low a threshold is reasonable? There is no need for special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. That is something that could be accomplished in one fell swoop. Amending the referendum law and lowering the threshold for public referenda, should not be done for the sake of a specific regulation.

Those who advocate amending the referendum law and lowering the voting threshold argue that the presidential election uses a plurality rather than an absolute majority. They argue that if an official as important as the president is elected by a merely plurality, why should the referendum law require a quorum consisting of half of the eligibile voters, plus an absolute majority? Why the need for this doubly high threshold? In fact of course, the original reason for such a high threshold was to avoid frequent reunification vs. independence referenda leading to political unrest.

Understanding the background for the original legislation makes it easier to sort out the context. Especially since Premier Chiang proposed a Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum last year, and the DPP proposed special regulations for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. One might say that the ruling and opposition parties already have a consensus on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant referendum. The problem is over the referendum threshold. That is why the ruling and opposition parties should consider this a last ditch measure. Amending the referendum law would lower the high threshold for reunification vs. independence referenda. Lowering the voting threshold for public referenda on ordinary public issues would resolve the dispute over "birdcage" referenda. It would also avoid the need for special regulations every time we hold a public referendum.

If there is a consensus on reducing the threshold for referenda, when should it be held? Su Tseng-chang fears being criticized for harboring a political agenda. He fears linking a referendum to a general election. On his own initiative he suggested delinking it with the seven in one general election. Since Su has made this gesture of good will, the ruling and opposition parties may wish to consider a referendum on nuclear power plant safety. This would be more professional and more responsible.

Of course without nuclear safety there would be no Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. If it cannot even pass security checks, we can bid the the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant farewell. We do not even need a referendum.

Finally, we appeal to ruling and opposition party politicians. Find your political conscience. Be responsible to history. Takethe Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue, which has festered for 30 years, seriously. In 2000, the DPP halted construction. Retired President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng were forced to clean up the mess. Faced with a new Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controvery, the KMT must not forget past experience. Wang Jin-pyng once had to clean up the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant mess, and prevent a "nuclear explosion."

Ma and Wang must set aside their grievances for the time being.

社論-核四風暴 要朝野一起解套
2014年04月23日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

核四到底要不要停建,因為林義雄昨天開始無限期禁食抗議,讓民進黨主席蘇貞昌四處奔走,分別會見行政院長江宜樺、台北市長郝龍斌、新北市長朱立倫,並表示願意和馬英九總統坐下來談,共同商量如何面對核四問題。

自1985年,立法院經濟委員會通過興建核四預算,要不要蓋核四,朝野一直翻來覆去,至今快30年,仍然無法解決。2011年發生日本福島核安問題,讓反核聲浪風起雲湧。去年行政院長江宜樺提出核四公投的議題,卻因為立法院朝野意見無法整合,加上公投門檻過高、反服貿協議的抗爭,核四爭議延宕至今,但是反核的抗議聲浪是有增無減。

其實,核四要不要停建是選擇題,不應該是是非題。關鍵就在,朝野政黨和人民要有共識,並且願意一起承擔停建核四後,必須面對比較高電價的生活代價。如果大家願意忍受相對高的電價,以及擬妥沒有核四,核一、核二、核三是否延役、替代能源如何備妥的共識,核四停建,或者建好封存不運轉,也是合理的選擇。

蘇貞昌會見江宜樺時提出兩個主張,一、行政院宣布停建核四;二、支持民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例。其中由行政院宣布停建核四的主張,江宜樺表示,行政院不能自行決定,的確是事實,也讓人有蘇貞昌是否明知故犯的感覺。

因為2000年10月27日,當時的行政院長張俊雄宣布停建核四,不僅股市重挫,立法院召開臨時會補破網,還動用到大法官會議解釋指出,行政院停建決定違背法律效力,也就是無效,逼得行政院再對外宣布核四復建。換言之,行政院不能自行決定停建核四。

至於是否支持民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例?關鍵就在目前公投法的門檻太高,被批評是鳥籠公投。民進黨主張比照離島條例,降低公投的門檻,以簡單多數決來決定核四要不要蓋。這個議題又牽涉到底公投的門檻多少才是合理?其次是有沒有必要為核四公投訂定特別條例,還是畢其功於一役,修改公投法,對於公共政策的公投,降低門檻,不是依個案訂定特別條例。

支持修改公投法,降低投票門檻的主張認為,我們總統選舉就是採相對多數就當選,並不是絕對多數。如果以總統這麼重要的權位都只是相對多數就當選,為什麼公投法規定要選舉人的一半投票,並且得票數要過半,這種「雙二一」的高門檻?其實,當初設計這麼高的門檻,說穿了就是避免動輒發動統獨公投,造成政局動盪不安。

了解當初的立法背景,就比較容易理出脈絡。尤其從去年江揆提出的核四公投,到民進黨提出的核四公投特別條例,可以說朝野都有核四公投的共識,問題在公投門檻的高低。因此朝野應該可以考慮釜底抽薪之計,修改公投法,把涉及國家定位的統獨公投保留目前的高門檻,至於一般的公共議題、公共政策公投,降低投票門檻,一方面解決鳥籠公投的爭議,另一方面也不必每一次遇到不同的公共政策就要訂定特別條例來公投。

另外是,如果降低公投門檻有共識,什麼時候公投?蘇貞昌擔心被批評政治算計太多,不搞公投綁大選,主動提出和年底七合一大選脫勾。蘇既然釋出這個善意,朝野可以考慮核四安檢後公投,應該是比較專業、負責任的做法。

當然,沒有核安就沒有核四,如果連安檢都沒有通過,核四就再見了,也不必公投。

最後,還是要呼籲朝野政治人物,拿出對歷史負責的政治良心,認真面對這個被擺爛了30年的核四問題。2000年民進黨停建核四的風暴,是由已經卸任總統的李登輝、當時的陳水扁總統和立法院長王金平連袂出手補救善後。面對來勢洶洶的新核四風暴,國民黨不要忘了找政治歷練深厚,曾經為停建核四善後的王金平共商決策,拆解「核爆」。

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Tsai Ing-wen: Final Mile, or Back to the Starting Line?

Tsai Ing-wen: Final Mile, or Back to the Starting Line?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 22, 2014


Summary: The ECFA controversy six years ago resembles the STA controversy six years later. They are similar but different. How different is Tsai Ing-wen six years later from Tsai Ing-wen six years earlier? Will she provide different answers to the same exam questions? Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's "final mile?" Or will she return to the starting line?

Full text below:

Tsai Ing-wen is about to become DPP Chairman a second time. Will she complete the final mile? Or will she return to the starting line?

Will history repeat itself? Tsai Ing-wen's situation today is virtually identical to her situation in 2008, when she first became party chairman. In 2008, confronted with ECFA, Tsai denounced ECFA as "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan," as "forfeiting sovereignty and humiliating the nation." Today, Tsai Ing-wen is confronted with the STA, the MTA, and the "Articles for Cross-Strait Agreement Oversight." In 2008, Tsai Ing-wen led mobs onto the streets around the hotel where ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin stayed on his first visit to Taiwan. The mobs greeted Chen with Molotov cocktails. How will Tsai Ing-wen greet Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun on his first visit to Taiwan?

Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's final mile? Or will she be returning to the starting line?

These two scenarios, six years apart, appear identical. But they are also different in fundamental ways. One. Six years ago the issue was ECFA. It was largely a cross-Strait relations issue. But six years later, the controversy over the STA has underscored issues such as the TPP, RCEP, and globalization. Tsai may still be turning a blind eye to the facts. She may still be trying to convince herself that the STA "panders to [Mainland] China and sells out Taiwan." But can she get away with demanding that Taiwan reject globalization? Two. Six years ago, mulish opposition to ECFA led to a DPP debacle that eventually motivated the DPP to consider reform, in order to win presidential elections. In order to complete what Tsai termed the "Final Mile." But six years later, the DPP is still waffling, still hesitant about reform. The Sunflower Student Movement has erupted. The Taiwan independence movement has passed the baton to a younger generation. This development could force Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP back to the starting line.

Six years ago, Tsai Ing-wen and older generation Taiwan independence advocates opposed ECFA and the 1992 consensus. Six years later younger generation Taiwan independence advocates oppose the STA and globalization. If Tsai goes along with them, she will not be completing the final mile. She will be returning to the starting line.

Tsai Ing-wen's "Final Mile" actually spans thousands of miles. One. Take the intractable issue of globalization. We must be competitive with other countries. We must ensure that we are on an equal footing with our international competitors. Vulnerable industries have no chance of survival. Try to protect them, and the entire country will be marginalized. Currently we do not even have the courage to enter the overseas market, let alone stimulate domestic transformation. Two. Take the issue of national identity. Using the "two states theory" to establish a Republic of China identity is backdoor listing. It does not address the problem. Taiwan must become more Chinese. Taiwan must become more closely identified with the Republic of China. That is Taiwan's only way out of its dilemma. Yet DPP opposition to [Mainland] China has become terror of [Mainland] China. The DPP lacks the courage to fight Beijing inside the "Greater One China Framework." Take the the Sunflower Student Movement's stubborn opposition to globalization and its abject terror of [Mainland] China. How can this possibly represent a "Final Mile?" Isn't this more like "thousands of miles away?"

Does Tsai Ing-wen really think the "Final Mile" involves only the presidential election? Tsai may attempt to take advantage of the Sunflower Student Movement's opposition to globalization. Does Tsai Ing-wen think the "Final Mile" will begin only after she is elected president? Only when she attempts to save Taiwan from social division and economic decline? Tsai must attempt to lead the public in the right direction -- now. She must attempt to lead the public toward globalization and the proper national identity -- now. She must not wait until after the election to "unconditionally accept" the policy positions of her predecessor.

Tsai Ing-wen still retains some credibility among the public, mainly because people still believe in her promise of a "Final Mile." But the influence of the younger generation Sunflower Student Movement has been considerable. If the tail begins wagging the dog, Tsai Ing-wen is likely to become the movement's political hostage, and find herself back at the starting line, just as she did six years ago.

The past and present political circumstances are similar. In 2012, just before the election, Douglas Paal expressed distrust in the DPP. His remark was directed at Tsai Ing-wen. David Brown and Daniel Russel recently issued strongly worded criticisms of the DPP, just as Tsai Ing-wen is about to resume her role as party chairman. From beginning to end, U.S. government distrust of the DPP has remained unchanged. Over the past six years, Washington, Beijing, and the public on Taiwan have had their eye on Tsai Ing-wen. They are familiar with all her tricks. Tsai Ing-wen has much less maneuvering room than she had before. Therefore when Tsai Ing-wen resumes her role as party chairman, she will no longer be able to play the same old political games. She will no longer be able to accuse her opponents of "pandering to [Mainland] China, selling out Taiwan." She will no longer be able to hide behind declarations that "I unconditionally accept the policies of my predecessor." This will be true for the DPP, for Washington, for Beijing, and for the public on Taiwan. Instead she will have to accept the necessity of globalization and a Chinese national identity. If she flip flops and refuses to commit, she will merely paint herself into a corner, the way she did in 2012.

Su Tseng-chang retreated in the face of swift currents. One reason was his reluctance to reconcile DPP policy reform with Sunflower Student Movement political pressure. He left the decision of choosing between the "Final Mile" and "returning to the starting line" to Tsai. He seized the opportunity to counterattack as Tsai Ing-wen deals with these problems. Will Tsai Ing-wen see the Sunflower Student Movement and the resurgence of Taiwan independence as good news, and return to the starting line? Will she realize that the DPP must deal with the Sunflower Student Movement before it implements policy reform? Will she realize she must complete that "final mile?"

The ECFA controversy six years ago resembles the STA controversy six years later. They are similar but different. How different is Tsai Ing-wen six years later from Tsai Ing-wen six years earlier? Will she provide different answers to the same exam questions? Will this be Tsai Ing-wen's "final mile?" Or will she return to the starting line?

蔡英文的最後一哩或回頭路
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.22 02:10 am

蔡英文將第二度出任民進黨主席,她究竟將走上她的最後一哩,或其實卻將走上回頭路?

歷史不知會不會重演,但今日蔡英文的處境,竟然與二○○八年她首度出任黨主席時恍若複製般一模一樣。二○○八年,面對ECFA,蔡英文祭起「傾中賣台/喪權辱國」的大旗;今天,蔡英文又面對兩岸服貿協議、貨貿協議及「兩岸協議監督條例」。二○○八年,蔡英文以群眾包圍酒店及在街頭丟汽油彈來接待首位訪台的海協會會長陳雲林;今天,蔡英文又將如何迎接首位訪台的國台辦主任張志軍?

這是蔡英文的最後一哩?或回頭路?

六年前後的兩個場景,看似一模一樣,卻也有根本的不同。一、六年前的ECFA主題,大致上只在兩岸關係的範圍內;但六年後的服貿風暴,卻帶出了TPP及RCEP等全球化的問題。蔡英文或許仍可閉著眼睛說服貿協議是「傾中賣台」,但她能不能主張「台灣拒絕全球化」?二、六年前反ECFA一路下來的失敗,好不容易激起民進黨內對蔡英文所提「最後一哩」的轉型思考;但六年後當民進黨尚在轉型津口猶豫之際,爆出了太陽花的「台獨世代交替」,卻有可能逼使蔡英文及民進黨又走上回頭路。

六年前蔡英文與「舊世代台獨」走向反ECFA、反九二共識,六年後她如果又與「台獨新世代」走向反服貿、反全球化,這就不是最後一哩,而是走回頭路。

蔡英文的「最後一哩」,其實是迢迢千里。一、全球化的難題:若不能為有競爭力者在國際上找到與他國競爭者平等的立足點,最後弱勢產業也無倖存機會,整個國家亦告邊緣化;現在是連境外市場都沒有勇氣進入,遑論國內開放以刺激轉型。二、國家認同的難題:用「兩國論」來建立中華民國的認同,只是借殼上市,不能解決問題,必須讓台灣社會領悟「愈『中華』,『民國』愈有力量」,始是台灣的生路;現在卻是「反中」變成「恐中」,遑論有在「大一中架構」下分庭抗禮的膽識。看今日太陽花所反映的「反全球化」及「恐中台獨」氛圍,這豈是「最後一哩」?又豈不是「迢迢千里」?

倘若蔡英文認為其「最後一哩」僅在選上總統,即儘管可趁太陽花運動反全球化之勢,僥倖一試;但蔡英文如果認為她的「最後一哩」應在一旦當選總統後解救台灣免於撕裂衰亡,她應該現在即開始嘗試將整個社會導向正確認知全球化及國家認同的方向,不能到了大選再來玩「概括承受」的把戲。

蔡英文迄今在社會上尚有一些分量,主要是因民眾對其「最後一哩」仍存有一些想像。但這一場太陽花新世代運動的聲勢浩大,一旦形成「尾巴搖狗」的態勢,蔡英文極有可能成為其政治俘虜,而走上六年前的回頭路。

論及今昔政治場景雷同,二○一二年包道格在大選前發表對民進黨不信任的言論,與蔡英文直接有關;如今,卜道維及羅素等人發表了對民進黨更強烈的批評之後,又逢蔡英文將接黨主席。一路走來,顯示美國政府對民進黨的不信任及負面評價迄未改變。六年來,美國、北京、台灣民眾皆在觀察蔡英文,如今花樣看盡,蔡英文能夠繞圈子的空間已小得多;因此,不論對黨內、華府、北京或對台灣民眾,蔡英文此次再接任黨主席,不能再玩「傾中賣台/概括承受」的老梗,而應以誠實開朗的態度面對「全球化」及「國家認同」兩大問題。如果再玩首鼠兩端繞圈子的花樣,最後必又將自己刷油漆刷到牆角,如二○一二年。

蘇貞昌急流勇退,原因之一應是不願面對「民進黨轉型」及「太陽花擋路」的兩難之局;同時,他也給蔡英文留下了一個「最後一哩」與「回頭路」的兩難困境,並等待蔡英文遭遇困境時伺機反撲。蔡英文若將太陽花運動視為台獨回潮的喜訊,那麼就走回頭路;但若認知太陽花可能是使民進黨轉型工程前功盡棄的警訊,即應繼續她的「最後一哩」。

六年前的ECFA風暴與六年後的服貿風暴何其相似,但又何其不同;六年後的蔡英文與六年前又有何異同?一樣的考卷,會不會有不同的答案;這將是蔡英文的最後一哩,或回頭路?

Monday, April 21, 2014

Taiwan Needs Planned Response to Mainland Economic Slowdown

Taiwan Needs Planned Response to Mainland Economic Slowdown
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 21, 2014


Summary: Cross-Strait inter-industry competition will gradually eclipse cooperation. At this point, the government may wish to convene a private entrepreneurs summit, drawing on industrial heavyweights from both sides of the Strait. They could promote cross-strait economic strategic dialogue and policy coordination within the ECFA framework. They could transform competition to cooperation, and enable cross-Strait industrial transformation and upgrading for mutual benefit.

Full text below:

The Mainland government's National Bureau of Statistics has released its latest statistics. This year's first quarter GDP growth was 7.4%. This represents a 0.3% decline over the fourth quarter. It also falls below the 7.5% official target. If the Mainland continues experiencing an economic slowdown, is there the risk of a hard landing? What impact will a slowdown have on the RMB exchange rate and international capital movement? Taiwan and Mainland China enjoy increasingly close economic and trade relations. What challenges will the Mainland economic slowdown bring? How should Taiwan respond? These and other related issues have attracted widespread concern that must be explored in depth.

Mainland GDP growth in 2011 was 9.2%. Since then however it has been on a downward slide. GDP growth in 2012 and 2013 slipped to 7.8% and 7.7% respectively. During the National People's Congress in March this year, the government set the economic growth target at around 7.5%. Premier Li Keqiang stressed that some deviation is tolerable. But the precondition is full employment. This reflects the fact that the Mainland economy has fallen significantly from a high growth rate over 9%, to a medium growth rate under 8%.

There are two main reasons for the Mainland's continued economic slowdown. One. The original growth model was highly dependent on exports and investments. Changes in the environment, both inside and outside the Mainland, have made this model unsustainable. Two. The original large-scale policy measures to stimulate economic growth led to serious overcapacity and financial bubbles. These too proved unsustainable. Last year the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a report. It warned that if the Mainland did not accelerate reforms, by 2020 economic growth could fall to about 4%. This is why once Xi and Li took office, they deepened reforms and sacrificed GDP growth. They traded short-term economic pain for long-term economic gain.

But the biggest problem facing Beijing currently is that deepened reform has led to a gradual slowing of economic dividends. The new government cannot make up the difference by means of "deleveraged structural adjustment" austerity measures. As a result economic growth has fallen to 7% or less, and the risk of a hard landing has increased. Given this increasingly serious situation, the Mainland's State Council introduced micro level stimulus measures earlier this month. On Wednesday it announced a cut in the reserve ratio for some farm and commercial bank deposits. If the second-quarter economic situation continues to deteriorate, further economic stimulus measures and loose monetary policy will become a necessary evil.

Substantial reductions in export growth and the trade surplus have made devaluation of the RMB exchange rate one of the policy tools Beijing may use for funding.Last month the People's Bank of China increased the float range for the RMB exchange rate. It used this to devalue the RMB up to last week. The RMB depreciated against the U.S. dollar by 2.8% over the year. This nearly matched the 2.9% depreciation last year. This should have a stimulus effect on exports. But recently the U.S. Treasury publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the Mainland, saying it has undervalued the yuan. In its semi-annual report it called the the decline in the value of the RMB "unprecedented." The United States is clearly worried that the prolonged rally of the RMB may change directions. The Treasury tried to pressure Beijing to put the RMB exchange rate back on the growth track. But it is generally believed that the Mainland's economic slowdown means the yuan will fall not rise. This fall cannot be expected to turn around and rise again until the second half of the year.

The RMB exchange rate has gone from endless appreciation in the past to alternating appreciation and depreciation in the present. Capital flows are key influences. In the past a steady stream of hot money flowed into the Mainland. This flow is reversing itself. This is sure to increase overall financial risk on the Mainland. It is sure to affect local bonds, corporate bonds, the housing bubble, and shadow banking. It is sure to increase the number of economic variables.

The Mainland has the world's second largest economy. Its economic growth rate has a significant impact on other Asian countries and emerging markets. Taiwan serves as both as a factory and market for the Mainland. The impact on its economy may be even more severe than it is for others. Therefore the government must prepare. It must attract Taiwan investments in the Mainland back to Taiwan. It must take advantage of the change in Mainland as OEM Factory export model. It must help Taiwan businesses expand into alternative markets, and establish a global presence. This two-pronged approach  will help Taiwan businesses stabilize export markets and global supply chains.

Meanwhile, the Mainland's economic growth has slowed. To a considerable extent, economic restructuring and adjustment are transient phenomena. Taiwan has advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, although Mainland industrial production has slowed, it enjoys relatively strong growth in the service sector. The proportion of GDP in the service sector continues to rise. Therefore Taiwan must take advantage of this trend. It must make use of its service sector advantages to develop the Mainland market. This will enable it to breakthrough the bottleneck of the domestic service industry. From this perspective, the importance of the STA should be self-evident. We must complete Legislative Yuan review as soon as possible, so as not to miss any opportunities.

On the minus side, the Mainland is undergoing "structural adjustment." It is actively promoting industrial restructuring and updating. It is focused on nurturing new industries, including high-end equipment, green energy, biotechnology, and next generation information and communication industries. These are very similar to Taiwan's main industries. Cross-Strait inter-industry competition will gradually eclipse cooperation. At this point, the government may wish to convene a private entrepreneurs summit, drawing on industrial heavyweights from both sides of the Strait. They could promote cross-strait economic strategic dialogue and policy coordination within the ECFA framework. They could transform competition to cooperation, and enable cross-Strait industrial transformation and upgrading for mutual benefit.

社論-大陸經濟減速 台灣須全方位因應
2014年04月21日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

上月中國人民銀行藉由擴大人民幣匯率浮動區間,順勢引導人民幣貶值,迄上周為止,人民幣兌美元匯率較年初累計貶值2.8%,幾乎等同去年全年2.9%的升幅,對刺激出口應有一定的效果。(資料照片)
上月中國人民銀行藉由擴大人民幣匯率浮動區間,順勢引導人民幣貶值,迄上周為止,人民幣兌美元匯率較年初累計貶值2.8%,幾乎等同去年全年2.9%的升幅,對刺激出口應有一定的效果。(資料照片)

大陸國家統計局公布最新統計數據,今年第一季GDP(國內生產毛額)增長率為7.4%,較去第四季下跌0.3個百分點,也跌破7.5%的官方設定目標。大陸經濟持續走緩,是否會有「硬著陸」風險?對人民幣匯率及國際資金移動會有何影響?台灣和大陸經貿關係日趨緊密,大陸經濟減速將帶來何種挑戰?台灣要如何因應?這一連串相關的問題備受各方關切,有必要深入探討。

大陸GDP增長率在2011年尚有9.2%,但之後一路下滑,2012及2013年GDP增長率分別滑落至7.8%及7.7%;今年3月全國人大將政府經濟增長率目標訂在7.5%左右,國務院總理李克強強調就是容忍高低偏離的彈性,但前提須保證充分就業。這反映大陸經濟已明顯從逾9%的高速增長落入低於8%的中速成長階段。

追根究柢,近年大陸經濟持續走緩的主要原因來自兩方面:一是原有高度依賴出口及投資的增長模式因內外環境改變而不可持續;二是原有大規模刺激經濟增長的政策措施引發產能過剩及金融泡沫等嚴重後遺症,亦難以為繼。去年國際貨幣基金(IMF)發布報告曾警告大陸若不加速推動改革,到2020年經濟增長率可能腰斬至4%左右。這也是何以習李上任之後,堅持深化改革,容忍犧牲GDP增長率,以短痛換取經濟長效的關鍵原因。

然而,當前北京面臨的最大難題是,深化改革所帶來的經濟紅利漸進且緩慢,不足彌補以「去槓桿、調結構」為主軸的新政所導致的緊縮效應,因而經濟增長率滑落至7%以下的「硬著陸」風險正持續升高。鑑於情勢日益嚴峻,大陸國務院在本月初推出微型刺激經濟措施,上周三又宣布將調降部分農村商業銀行存款準備率,若第二季經濟走緩情勢持續惡化,則更進一步的刺激經濟措施及寬鬆貨幣政策,恐將成為必要之惡。

在出口負增長及貿易順差大幅減少情況下,人民幣匯率貶值亦成為北京可資運用的政策工具之一。上月中國人民銀行藉由擴大人民幣匯率浮動區間,順勢引導人民幣貶值,迄上周為止,人民幣兌美元匯率較年初累計貶值2.8%,幾乎等同去年全年2.9%的升幅,對刺激出口應有一定的效果。惟日前美國財政部對大陸壓低人民幣匯率公開表示不滿,在半年度報告中稱人民幣跌勢「前所未見」;美國顯然是擔憂持續多年的人民幣升勢可能逆轉,財政部表態意在向北京施壓,以促使人民幣匯率重回升軌。惟一般預料,受大陸經濟增長走緩的影響,近期人民幣仍將貶多升少,最快須到下半年才可能由貶轉升。

人民幣匯率從過去單向升值轉為有升有貶,對資金流向亦有關鍵影響力,過去源源不斷流向大陸套利套匯的熱錢勢將反轉,對大陸日益惡化的地方債、企業債、房市泡沫及影子銀行等問題如雪上加霜,整體金融風險勢必升高,亦增添大陸經濟的變數。

大陸是世界第二大經濟體,其經濟增長減緩對亞洲國家及新興市場將產生可觀衝擊;台灣既以大陸作為工廠,又以大陸作為市場,可能受到的衝擊更甚於其他國家。因此,政府必須作好各項因應準備工作,一方面須積極吸引大陸台商回台投資,趁勢改變「以大陸為工廠」的代工出口模式;另一方面,須積極協助台商拓展替代市場,進行新階段的全球布局,雙管齊下,穩住台商的出口市場及全球供應鏈。

另一方面,大陸經濟增長減緩,在相當程度上,是經濟轉型和調整的過渡現象,對台灣有利也有弊。從有利的一面來看,大陸工業生產雖然趨緩,但服務業增長相對強勁,GDP中服務業所占比重持續上升,因此,台灣須掌握此一趨勢,利用本身服務業優勢,積極拓展大陸市場,藉此突破國內服務業發展的瓶頸。從這個角度來看,兩岸服貿協議的重要性和迫切性不言而喻,及早完成立法院審查程序,才不致錯失良機。

再從不利的方面來看,大陸為「調結構」,正積極推動產業轉型換代,其重點扶植產業,包括高端設備、綠能、生技、新一代的資通訊產業等,和台灣主力產業高度雷同,致兩岸產業間的競爭性逐漸超過互補性,鑑此,現階段,政府可先借重兩岸企業家峰會等民間重量級組織,配合ECFA架構下的兩岸經濟合作會議,推動兩岸經濟戰略對話及政策協調,化競爭為合作,讓兩岸產業能夠同步轉型升級,互利雙贏。

Thursday, April 17, 2014

When Democracy is a Reality, Revolution is a Betrayal

When Democracy is a Reality, Revolution is a Betrayal
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 18, 2014


Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a "Not enough sleep. It's your fault!" fairy tale revolution. Take a closer look at the two themes of "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." The public on Taiwan must be honest. Is this really defending democracy? Or is this a betrayal of democracy? Is this anti-China demagoguery? Or is this simply visiting disaster upon Taiwan?

Full text below:

The student movement advanced two themes, "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." First take "defend democracy." The student movement was ostensibly motivated by democracy. But as time went by it became increasingly anti-democratic. The occupation of the Legislative Yuan and the invasion of the Executive Yuan were illegal and lacked all legitimacy. Now take "withdraw the STA." The proposed "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance" attempts to hijack the government and force it to adopt a Taiwan independence cross-Strait policy, and reject globalization as the strategy for Taiwan's survival.

Daniel R. Russel is U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. What he says can be regarded as the U.S. government's official comment on the student movement. First, Russell said that the United States welcomes the progress made by the Ma government in promoting cross-Strait relations. He said it was a continuation of the U.S. government's long held positive evaluation of recent cross-Strait policy. He spoke in no uncertain terms. Conversely his statement can be considered a critique of the student movement's cross-Strait policy demands. Secondly, Russell said that he hoped the students and organizations demonstrating against free trade would act responsibly. That they would adopt free, civilized, and peaceful means of demonstration, and avoid violence. The U.S. government harshly criticized the Chen government's Taiwan independence political maneuvers as unhelpful to Taiwan's democracy. This is the first time it has criticized civilian sector political demonstrations. Its statement implied that the student movement was "uncivilized, not peaceful, violent and failed to make responsible use of its freedom." Russell said America does not agree with the student movement's cross-Strait policy. It does not think the student movement's occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan were civilized and responsible democratic behavior.

The student movement invoked the slogan "When dictatorship is a reality, revolution is a duty." But conversely, "When democracy is a reality, revolution is a betrayal." Politics and government on Taiwan are flawed. But the ROC is one of the freest, most democratic nations in the world. This is universally recognized. Therefore, no one can arbitrarily accuse it of being a "government of jackals and hyenas" or of being an "authoritarian regime." The student movement proclaimed that "revolution is not a crime, rebellion is justified." But when democracy has become a reality, occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan is a betrayal of democracy and the rule of law.

Taiwan was witness to the 2004 "Two Bullets" mass protests in 2004, and the Red Shirts protests in 2006. During the Red Shirts protest one million individuals participated. Yet no one stormed the presidential palace. This is where the ROC differs from Thailand and Ukraine. The student movement occupied the Legislative Yuan and invaded the Executive Yuan. Where is their legitimacy? 

Legislative review of the STA may have contained procedural defects. But this "nine months plus thirty seconds" Legislative Yuan farce is old hat. Does the failure of representative politics justify occupying the Legislative Yuan? The Legislative Yuan resists passing Sunshine Laws, capital gains taxes, market price reporting. The DPP occupies the podium, holds "sleep-ins" on the floor of the Legislative Yuan. Wang Jin-pyng engages in judicial influence peddling. So when should one advocate civil disobedience and when should one occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan? Opponents of the STA occupied the floor of the Legislative Yuan. Can supporters of the STA invoke the same justifications to moblize the public and occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan? 

Every time chaos erupts in the Legislative Yuan, the opposition demands a "Citizens' Constitutional Convention." But why not ask a different question? If Wang Jin-pyng were not playing "party consultation" tricks, would the STA have become a "nine months plus thirty seconds" farce? It is easy to occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan. It it hard to get Wang Jin-pyng to change his political tricks. People are forced to sit and watch as Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming destroy popular representation and majority rule. They are forced to listen to slogans such as "When dictatorship is a fact, revolution is a duty." The misuse of such slogans tramples over democracy, and insults revolutions.

Had student movement demanded "procedural legitimacy." it might have retained its democratic bona fides. But the student movement proposed a "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance." If the Legislative Yuan failed to meekly obey, the student movement threatened to lay siege to the presidential palace. If this is it thinks, the student movement may as well establish a "revolutionary provisional government." Why bother with the Legislative Yuan? There is an even deeper question. The "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance " is an attempt to coerce the government into adopting a Taiwan independence cross-Strait policy, and rejecting globalization as Taiwan's strategy for survival. Do the Oligarchs of the student movement really believe this is saving Taiwan and loving Taiwan? At one time they demanded a "referendum on the STA" and a "referendum on Taiwan independence." Such demands might be consistent with democracy. But to combine such demands with threats of violence, is anti-democratic and has no legitimacy whatsover.

The student movement was a reflection of its supporters' concern for the nation and patriotism. These must be faced squarely. But there are two concerns. One. The Oligarchs of the student movement occupied the Legislative Yuan and invaded the Executive Yuan. Their behavior had no legitimacy. Even Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting admitted that these were "illegal acts." If the public on Taiwan concludes that the occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan were glorious feats of democracy, Taiwan will become the next Ukraine. Two. Taiwan's cross-Strait policy may not be flawless. But opponents of the STA want to go back to promoting Taiwan independence or rejecting globalization. Is that really the answer?

This is a "Not enough sleep. It's your fault!" fairy tale revolution. Take a closer look at the two themes of "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." The public on Taiwan must be honest. Is this really defending democracy? Or is this a betrayal of democracy? Is this anti-China demagoguery? Or is this simply visiting disaster upon Taiwan?

當民主已成事實 革命就是背叛
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.18 03:14 am

試以「捍衛民主/退回服貿」兩大主軸為此次學運定位。一、捍衛民主:這場學運有其民主性的動機,但運動的過程卻愈來愈反民主;霸占立法院及侵入行政院則皆為非法行為,絕無正當性可言。二、退回服貿:最後提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》,不啻欲挾持政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策,並因而否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略。

美國國務院亞太助理國務卿羅素的發言,可視為美國政府對這場學運的正式評論。一、羅素說:「美方歡迎馬政府推動兩岸關係的卓越進展。」這是延續了美國近年對馬政府兩岸政策的一貫正向評價,且用了更強調的語彙。相對而言,也可視為美國官方對學運訴求之兩岸路線的負向評價。二、羅素說:「希望反服貿學生及示威團體能負責任地使用自由,文明、和平地示威,並避免暴力。」美國政府過去曾厲言批評扁政府的台獨操作無助增加台灣的民主內涵,此次則似為首次對台灣民間的政治示威事件持批評的立場,意謂這場學運存有「不文明、不和平、暴力及未能負責任地使用自由」之處。羅素的評論是在指出:美國未必認同學運主張的兩岸政策路線,亦不認為學運所採霸占立院、侵入政院等手段為文明且負責任的民主作為。

學運期間,出現了「當獨裁成為事實,革命就是義務」的口號;但是,這句口號的對照面則是:「當民主已成為事實,革命就是背叛。」台灣的政治及行政品質縱有種種缺失,但台灣確是全世界民主化及自由度最高的國家之一,這是舉世共認的事實。因此,不容任何人恣意貼上「豺狼政府」、「獨裁政府」的標籤,就自拉自唱地宣告「革命無罪/造反有理」。當民主已成事實,霸占立院及侵入政院就是對民主與法治的背叛

台灣曾歷經二○○四年兩顆子彈及二○○六年紅衫軍兩大街頭群眾事件;尤其紅衫軍號稱百萬示威,也沒有人衝進總統府。這正是台灣與泰國及烏克蘭不同之處,則這場學運霸占立院及侵入政院的正當性何在?

立院審查服貿確有其程序不正義,但這個「九個月加卅秒」的立院醜態並非始自今日。如果認為立院的代議政治失敗,即可霸占立院;則在立院抵拒陽光法案時、抗拒證所稅時、頑抗實價登錄時、霸占主席台時、在議場打地鋪時,及王金平涉及司法關說時,何時不應主張「公民不服從」?何時不應霸占議場?即以此次反服貿者霸占議場言,則為何支持服貿者如彭淮南等人不能也率眾霸占議場?

再者,每論及立院亂象,動輒就上綱到「公民憲政會議」,但為什麼不反問:只要王金平不要玩弄他的「朝野協商」,就不會出現服貿這種「九個月加卅秒」的醜態?如今卻是:霸占議場易,改變王金平難;坐視整個多數統治原則的代議制度毀在王金平與柯建銘之手,然後再來說「當獨裁已成事實/革命就成義務」,這其實是作踐了民主,也汙辱了革命。

如果這場學運只是主張逐條審查的「程序正義」,那或許尚能維持其民主性。但學運提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》,並揚言立院若不照辦,就要去圍總統府;那麼,學運何不乾脆自組「革命臨時執政團」,何必還要立法院?更深一層的問題是:《兩岸協定締結條例》是在脅迫政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策,並進而否決了台灣全球化的生存戰略;如果學運寡頭真的相信這就是救台灣、愛台灣的抉擇,其實倘能主張付諸「服貿公投」或「台獨公投」,這或許還能有其民主正當性,但若把要脅當作要求,那就根本是反民主,更何來正當性?

這場學運所反映的附從者之憂國心情及愛國情操必須嚴正面對。但是:一、學運寡頭霸占立院及侵入政院的行為絕無正當性,這是連林飛帆及陳為廷二人都承認的「非法行為」;台灣社會若認為霸占立院及侵入政院是光榮的民主壯舉,台灣就將是下一個烏克蘭。二、台灣難有萬全的兩岸政策,但反服貿運動者提供的方案若竟是「再回頭搞台獨」或「拒絕全球化」,這難道不是一個太離譜的答案?

這是一場「睡不飽,你害的」童話革命。請再檢視「捍衛民主/退回服貿」兩大主軸,台灣社會應誠實面對:這究竟是捍衛民主、還是背叛民主?究竟是反中抗中、還是禍台害台?

National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics should be Organized by Academia Sinica

National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics should be Organized by Academia Sinica
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 17, 2014


Summary: A crisis is a turning point. The STA dispute has just given social development a new direction. We urge the ruling and opposition parties to set aside their differences, capitalize on the trend, work together to make this National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics a success. Give young people opportunity and hope. This is the way to benefit the nation.

Full text below:

After the student movement ended, the Executive Yuan began planning a National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics. But difficulties arose with the Advisory Group list. It was also necessary to increase community involvement. Therefore the June meeting was postponed until July. The affairs of the nation are overwhelming. A conference to establish a national consensus is essential. But the social divisions uncovered by the Sunflower Student Movement are serious. They include divisions over cross-Strait relations, reunification vs. independence, left vs. right economic policy, and generational justice. The Executive Yuan attempted to single-handedly hold a National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics confined to economic and trade issues. In the end it died a natural death and nothing was achieved.

When students occupied the Legislative Yuan and demanded a "Peoples Constitutional Conference," the government responded. Together with business groups it proposed the convening of national conference. Premier Chiang approved a National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics in June. During Taiwan's democratization, it has convened a National Conference, a National Development Conference, a Sustainable Development Conference, and an Economic Development Advisory Conference. It has abundant experience and has established many precedents. These have provided the government with suggestions from different sectors, enabled ruling and opposition party dialogue, resolved differences, created a consensus, and blazed a trail for the future.

But society is divided over a National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics. The private sector "Citizens Constitutional Conference" argues that the key is Taiwan's many unresolved constitutional problems, and that the government should not use the STA to avoid the problem. It even thinks that the National Conference is merely  a children's tea party. But as China Times editorials have proposed before, the Citizens Constitutional Conference, once convened, could open a Pandora's box of controversial reunification vs. independence issues. When discussing the issue of reunification vs. independence, it is easy to issue a manifesto and dig in one's heels. This leads to out of control cross-Strait relations, political chaos and unrest, The costs outweigh the benefits.

Therefore we affirm Premier Chiang's National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics. It was the right decision. The STA is a trade issue. The conference uses this as its theme. It explores ways to link Taiwan with the international community and Taiwan with the Mainland. It explores ways to enable Taiwan's participation in regional economic integration, and addresses STA-related national security issues and economic interests, These can all be given comprehensive consideration during the conference. We believe this is a good way to discuss Taiwan's future. Discussing cross-Strait relations under the STA umbrella ensures focus, and avoids becoming sidetracked by reunification vs independence controversies. The government announced early this year that it would attempt to revive the economy. It must get through this as quickly as possible.

The Executive Yuan has handed the difficult task of convening the National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics to the newly established National Development Council. But the government has low poll ratings. Attempting to convene a consensus building conference satisfactory to both the Blue Camp and the Green camp is impossible. The National Development Conference is responsible for Executive Yuan policy development. The Free Trade Zone Pilot Program is its top priority. The Free Trade Zone land deregulation provisions have provoked social movement opposition. To avoid the Free Trade Zone from going the way of the STA, the NDC must adopt comprehensive preventive measures. We are concerned that the NDC lacks the energy to convene a National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics.

We urge the ROC government to recruit people from politically neutral agencies acceptable to the public, and allow them to organize the conference. The government should shuttle between impartial agencies, and facilitate dialogue and consultation between dedicated members of the ruling and opposition parties.

With this in mind, the Academia Sinica is the most appropriate organizer. The Academia Sinica is the ancient Imperial Academy. Academia personnel are leaders in various fields of knowledge. The 258 academicians are held in high esteem. They are national treasures. The Academia Sinica is the nation's highest academic research organization. It is already shouldering the expectations of society and putting forward policy recommendations. Having the Academia Sinica plan, co-ordinate, hold, and convene the meeting, and afterwards issue national policy recommendations, will transcend Blue vs. Green politics and establish a precedent for the government's future reference.

Is important to convene a successful National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics, establish a consensus, ensure that everyone is on the same page, establish a routine, set an agenda, prepare a meeting, select a chairman, and afterwards, issue supplementary information. Initial planning meetings are being held by various ministries based on their areas of responsibility. The meetings are being conducted by groups. Eventually the General Assembly will draw conclusions. But the government also wants to increase public participation, and listen to the views of the younger generation. Therefore its use of the Internet and live media are especially meaningful. During the student movement, the new technology defeated the traditional media. The iPad defeated SNG vehicles. Only those adept at using the latest high-technology were able to attract young people. The technology allows young people to prepare topics, provide advice, participate in online activities, and reach a final conclusion. Only this constitutes a successful, modern National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics.

A crisis is a turning point. The STA dispute has just given social development a new direction. We urge the ruling and opposition parties to set aside their differences, capitalize on the trend, work together to make this National Affairs Conference on Trade and Economics a success. Give young people opportunity and hope. This is the way to benefit the nation.

社論-經貿國是會議應委由中研院舉辦
2014年04月17日 04:10 中國時報 編輯部

學運落幕後,行政院開始規畫召開「經貿國是會議」,卻因顧問小組名單難喬,也需要慎思如何擴大民間參與,因而決定將預定6月舉行的會議延期到7月。國事如麻,當前確有召開全國性共識會議的必要,但我們必須坦率指出,太陽花學運所反映的社會歧異現象,包括兩岸關係統與獨、經濟政策左或右及世代正義問題,均極其嚴重,行政院企圖憑一己之力召開局限經貿議題的國是會議,最後不是無疾而終就是一事無成。

當初政府是為了回應學生占領立院時要求「公民憲政會議」,及工商團體建議召開「國是會議」,而由江揆拍板於6月召開「經貿國是會議」。台灣在民主化過程中,曾先後舉行國是會議、國家發展會議、經續會、經發會等,已經有足夠的前例與經驗可以遵循,確實有助於政府聽取各界建言、促成朝野對話、化解歧見、凝聚共識,為台灣找到出路。

但目前社會對於經貿國是會議已有不同的聲音,民間自發成立的「公民憲政會議推動連線」就強調,台灣許多懸而未決的憲政難題才是關鍵,政府不應以「經貿」問題迴避,甚至認為經貿國是會議只是行政權在扮家家酒。但正如《中國時報》社論之前的主張,召開公民憲政會議很容易打開統獨爭議的潘朵拉之盒。討論統獨問題時,很容易為堅持理念而無限上綱,因而失控造成政治失序和兩岸關係動盪,最後得不償失。

因此我們要肯定江揆設定經貿為主題的國是會議,這是正確的決定。服貿是經貿問題,會議主軸由此出發,思考和台灣和國際、大陸經貿接軌、參與區域經濟整合問題,服貿引起的國安問題及經貿利益分配問題,都可以在會中有全盤性的考量,相信這是探討台灣未來很好的切入方向。在經貿為題的大帽子下,討論兩岸關係,既可以聚焦,又可以避免發散到統獨爭議。年初政府就宣布今年要拚經濟,必須盡快打通此督脈。

行政院已將舉辦國是會議的艱鉅任務交給新成立的國發會,可是,以政府當今的低民調支持率,要舉行讓藍綠皆滿意的凝聚共識會議,似乎緣木求魚。而且國發會當今承擔行政院的施政發展規畫外,自由經濟示範區又是重中之重。而示範區用地鬆綁的規定,逐漸引燃各地社運團體的反對,為避免自由經濟示範區恐步服貿後塵,國發會必須全力以赴防微杜漸,我們擔心國發會是否行有餘力來承擔經貿國是會議重任。

我們建議,政府應該委由國人可以接受,政治中立的單位來承辦國是會議,透過公正單位的穿梭協助,促成朝野及有志之士的對話與協商。

以此考量,中央研究院是最好的承辦單位。中研院是古代的翰林院,院中的研究人才都是各知識領域的翹楚,258位院士望重士林,是不折不扣的國寶人物。中研院為全國學術研究最高機關,本來就肩負社會眾望與提出政策建言的任務;因此由中研院來統籌規畫國是會議,舉行並召開,之後並作成國是建言,將可跨越藍綠,並為以後政府的施政參考。

要成功召開國是會議,凝聚共識,避免各說各話,流於形式,議題的設定、會議準備、主席的選擇,乃至於事後資料補充,就非常重要。目前初步規畫的開會方式,是依議題由各負責的部會認領,以分組方式進行,最後再由大會做總結。但政府也希望擴大民意參與、傾聽年輕世代意見,因此透過網路平台及媒體的實況就特別有意義。學運時,新科技打敗傳媒,iPad打敗SNG車。唯有善用最新的高科技,才能吸引年輕人。讓年輕人可以擬訂議題、提供意見,線上參與所有的過程,最後得到結論,才能說是現代成功的國是會議。

危機正是轉機,服貿爭議正好給予社會一個發展的新方向。我們也誠摯呼籲朝野拋棄歧見,因勢利導,共同把這次經貿國是會議做好,也給年輕人機會與希望,此方為國家之福。

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Student Movement: Laying Track for the Xiaoying Express

Student Movement: Laying Track for the Xiaoying Express
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 16, 2014


Summary: Water can float a boat, but it can also capsize it. In 2012 Tsai failed to negotiate the last mile. The 24 day long student movement has positioned Tsai Ing-wen at the crest of a political wave. Tsai must avoid being crushed by this wave. Only then can the "Xiaoying Express" carry her across the last mile. But student leaders have been shouting anti-China and pro-Taiwan independence slogans. If they want to help Xiaoying win, they must take them all back. Can they?

Full text below:

Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh have pulled out of the DPP party chairmanship election. Tsai Ing-wen is now a shoo-in. The 2016 DPP presidential nomination is hers. The Sunflower student movement collided head on with the Ma administration. To everyone's surprise, it undermined Su's leadership. This was truly an unexpected consequence of the student movement.

The Sunflower student movement led to Su's exit and Tsai's entrance. It has long been said that "who controls the party machinery, controls the strategic picture." But this is a myth. When navigating political storms, one must exercise rational and effective leadership. Otherwise helming the party machinery will merely lead to self-injury. Take Su Tseng-chang for example. Tsai Ying-wen's momentum is surging. Ma Ying-jeou is already a lame duck, one deaf to advice, both from the inside and the outside. For Ma, this has been a costly lesson.

The student movement proved that Tsai has solid support on college campuses. Many student leaders are graduates of her Thinking Taiwan Organization work-study program. The stature of the DPP Youth Corps has steadily grown, honed by social movements. The student movement enabled it to demonstrate its public relations and organizational skills. Following the DPP defeat in 2008, Tsai Ing-wen spared no effort recruiting pro-Green intelligentsia and community organizations. Two years ago,  as a Tsinghua professor, she delivered a touching concession speech. The student movement has clearly sunk its roots among the younger generation on college campuses.

Su served as party chairman for two years. Tsai Ing-wen used the opportunity to create a heroic public image. She may not have been center stage politically. But this had an upside. It kept her in the clear each time the DPP engaged in obstructionism and trouble-making. Also, when progressive intellectuals denounced the ruling and opposition parties, Tsai's Teflon image kept her free from harm. By contrast, Su Tseng-chang was never able to implement this many hidden agendas. He suffered the consequences of his penny wise pound foolish tactics.

Was Tsai Ing-wen the sole beneficiary of the student movement? No. That would be an exaggeration. The student movement opposed black box operations, opposed the CSSTA, and promoted hatred of Mainland China. Tsai Ing-wen seeks a more pragmatic and stable cross-strait relationship. The student movement differs from and clashes with Tsai's cross-strait policy.

If Tsai Ing-wen wants the support of the student movement, she must endorse its hardline anti-Mainland proposals. On the other hand, if she wants to ensure the Democratic Progressive Party's return to power, she cannot afford either extremism or fence-straddling. Otherwise, more mature middle class voters will reject her. In fact, this was the main reason Su Tseng-chang gave for his withdrawal. He did not want to have to clean up the mess left by the student movement, while Tsai Ing-wen reaped its benefits. He wanted to force Tsai Ing-wen to clean up her own mess, and the dilemma the student movement left the DPP.

Su and Hsieh pulled out of the election, one after the other. On the surface, Tsai Ing-wen became the student movement era DPP leader. Her political future seems bright. But she now faces a dilemma. The CSSTA and the Articles for the Oversight of Cross-Strait Trade Agreements will lead to a ruling vs. opposition party clashes in the legislature. Can she formulate a strategy better than Su Tseng-chang's? Can she provide effective checks and balances? Can she avoid being hijacked by the student movement?

If the baton can be passed to the younger generation, the DPP's public image will immediately become younger. But ideologically it will be informed by the student movement's intense Sinophobia. That being the case, political and economic issues already clarified may once again become muddied and confused. Tsai Ing-wen must help the DPP formulate a rational policy trusted by the majority. Otherwise insoluble factional disputes will make it impossible for her to remake the DPP's image among moderate voters.

Can Tsai Ing-wen lead the DPP through a successful transition? Can she pass muster during the year end elections? If she can, then an opposition party with a clean image, adept at offense and defense, will pose a serious threat to the ruling KMT in the 2016 election, and an even greater threat afterwards. The KMT would find itself on the defensive. From this perspective, the political repercussions of Su Tseng-chang's withdrawal are akin to a nuclear explosion. The KMT must tread cautiously.

Water can float a boat, but it can also capsize it. In 2012 Tsai failed to negotiate the last mile. The 24 day long student movement has positioned Tsai Ing-wen at the crest of a political wave. Tsai must avoid being crushed by this wave. Only then can the "Xiaoying Express" carry her across the last mile. But student leaders have been shouting anti-China and pro-Taiwan independence slogans. If they want to help Xiaoying win, they must take them all back. Can they?

學運為「小英號列車」鋪了最後一哩?
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.16 03:41 am

在蘇貞昌、謝長廷退出黨主席選舉後,蔡英文篤定成為贏家,二○一六總統大選門票於她已儼然在握。太陽花學運強烈衝撞馬政府,不料卻先瓦解了蘇貞昌的領導;在外界看來,這真是學運大戲的奇中奇。

太陽花學運演成「蘇退、蔡進」的結局,說明了「掌握黨機器才能掌控大局」的想法,其實只是政治人物的權力神話。現實是,如果無法合理、有效地領導政治走向,徒然擁有龐大的黨機器,結果只是砸傷自己。蘇貞昌的例子,不僅對氣勢正旺的蔡英文是鮮活的教案,對於已然跛腳卻仍不知聽取內外建言的馬英九而言,更是血淋淋的一課。

這次學運,證實蔡英文成功扎根校園。幾名學運領袖都曾由小英基金會安排「工讀」,並以民進黨「青年軍」的身分一路成長,經由社會運動的磨練,在學運中展現宣傳、組織戰力。事實上,二○○八年民進黨敗選後,蔡英文在親綠知識界、社運界的經營即不遺餘力,兩年前她動人的敗選聲明更出自清華教授之筆。從這次學運,可以看到此一脈絡之影響確已在大學校園中開花散枝,深入年輕世代。

在蘇貞昌出任黨主席的兩年,蔡英文以自由之身在民間營造其超然形象;雖未置身政治舞台中心,卻免受民進黨動輒杯葛鬧事的醜態牽累。同時,在「進步知識分子」對朝野政黨口誅筆伐時,蔡英文也因「不沾鍋」風格而倖免其殃。相形之下,蘇貞昌的處心積慮卻處處自限,終致貪小失大的下場。

但是,要說這次學運的花果能被蔡英文一手收割,恐怕言過其實。原因是,學運的訴求從「反黑箱」倒向「反服貿」,甚至一路延燒出「反中」、「仇中」的烈火;這樣的發展,與蔡英文正在謀求建立一個更務實、更平穩的兩岸關係背道而馳。甚至可以說,這次學運的主張,對蔡英文規劃中的兩岸政策是一次悖離和打擊。

如果蔡英文想要收編支持學運的年輕族群,她必須接收學運的強烈反中主張。但如果她想要兼顧民進黨的收復執政權大計,她其實沒有任何偏走極端或苟且曖昧的餘地;那樣的話,她勢必被成熟族群及中間族群拋棄。這其實也是蘇貞昌選在此時宣布退選的主因:他不想在這裡辛苦收拾學運留下的殘局,卻讓蔡英文在那裡悠閒地坐收漁利;他要逼蔡英文自己出馬清理這片狼藉,面對學運留給民進黨的兩難。

表面上看,在蘇謝相繼退選後,蔡英文成為「後學運時代」的民進黨領導人,政治前景似一片光明。但實質上,她要立即面對的,是服貿協議及兩岸協議監督條例在立法院的朝野交鋒;她能否拿出比蘇貞昌更高明的戰略,能否提出有效制衡、又不被學運訴求脅制的解決,並非容易的任務。

簡言之,如果「中生代接班」可能實現,民進黨的外在形象或可望立即年輕化;但在意識形態上,卻將因學運的拉扯而被強烈的「反中」思維主導。那麼,台灣近年盤整得較為清晰的政經議題,可能重新陷入混沌,情勢愈發紛亂。蔡英文若不能為民進黨理出一條爭取多數人民信任的理性出路,在剪不斷、理還亂的派系恩仇糾葛下,她恐難破除民進黨留在一般中間選民心中的「亂黨」的形象。

但是,如果蔡英文能領導民進黨徹底成功轉型,並在年底選舉過關斬將;那麼,一個形象清新、攻守有據的在野黨,不僅將在二○一六年嚴重威脅執政黨,在未來一段時間內,國民黨恐怕都將處於挨打的劣勢。從這個角度看,蘇貞昌宣告退選所引發的政治效應,對台灣即可能形同一場核爆,國民黨務必戒慎恐懼因應。

問題是,水能載舟,亦能覆舟。今天,把蔡英文推向政治浪尖的,是廿四天的學運浪潮;而蔡英文首須克服的,是如何把這波過激的浪潮壓抑下去,那樣,「小英號列車」才有可能平穩走完她二○一二年失之交臂的「最後一哩路」。然而,學生領袖剛剛喊得震天價響的「反中」、「台獨」,若為了幫小英抬轎而須將所有大話吞回去,又將是怎麼吞法呢?

Monday, April 14, 2014

Fading Rays of Taiwan Independence Fall on Sunflowers

Fading Rays of Taiwan Independence Fall on Sunflowers
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 15, 2014


Summary: Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated Taiwan independence. Twenty-five years later, the Sunflower student movement is still belated advocating Taiwan independence? Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech. Who knew that 25 years later the Sunflower student movement would impose a Black Terror that permits only one viewpoint.

Full text below:

Roughly 25 years ago, Cheng Nan-jung said "I am Cheng Nan-jung, I advocate Taiwan independence." Today, 25 years later, others have said "I am Lin Fei-fan, I advocate Taiwan independence" and "I am Chen Wei-ting, I advocate Taiwan independence."

Cheng Nan-jung has become the student movement's latest Taiwan independence idol. But over the past 20 years, Cheng family memorial services changed. Now the family speaks only of Cheng's advocacy of "100% freedom of speech." They no longer speak of his advocacy of Taiwan independence. This is because freedom of speech is a universal value. Whereas Taiwan independence is merely a fleeting strategic option for national survival.

Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech and Taiwan independence. But he did so within a specif historical context. Martial law had just been lifted. Article 100 of the Criminal Code however, was still on the books. Advocacy of Taiwan independence was part and parcel of advocating 100% freedom of speech. Furthermore, when martial law was being lifted, its political aftershocks were still being felt. The Cold War continued. The Chinese mainland showed no signs of becoming a rising power. The United States had yet to be weakened by 9/11. Globalization was still a distant concept. As a result Taiwan independence became a political option for many intellectuals, including Cheng Nan-jung. In 1991 the DPP announced its Taiwan Independence Party Platform, two years after Cheng Nan-jung immolated himself in 1989.

Recent student movement protests have touched off a wave of Taiwan independence sentiment, eight years after the fall of the DPP's Taiwan independence regime. Even DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has acknowledged that the DPP "can no longer return to advocacy of Taiwan independence." If Cheng Nan-jung were alive today, would he still insist on Taiwan independence as the proper strategy for national survival? No one is in a position to speak for him.

In this regard, we must distinguish between freedom of speech and strategic options for national survival. A person may be exercising his right to free speech. But that hardly mean that his strategy for national survival is correct. Cheng Nan-jung demanded Taiwan independence. When martial law and Article 100 of the Criminal Code were in force, demands for Taiwan independence were a form of free of speech. Is Taiwan independence the right strategy for national survival? We will not pursue that in detail. When Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting advocate Taiwan independence today, it has nothing to do prohibitions against free speech. When one already enjoys 100% freedom of speech, then the accuracy of what one's utterances becomes more important than whether they were uttered freely. Upholding the right to advocate Taiwan independence, does no mean that Taiwan independence is the proper strategy for national survival. After all, "free" and "correct" are not synonyms. In fact, they are often at odds with each other.

Since Cheng Nan-jung's time, Taiwan independence has undergone over 20 years of trials and tribulations. Today even the DPP is considering whether to repeal or freeze its Taiwan Independence Party Platform. This has nothing to do with upholding the freedom to advocate Taiwan independence. The real issue is whether Taiwan independence is the correct strategy for national survival. Alas, Taiwan independence is akin to the setting sun. Its last rays are shining upon the sunflowers.

Li Ao said "A belated Party Outsider is not a Party Outsider." In other words, If one waits until there is 100% freedom of speech before becoming a Party Outsider, one is merely another political opportunist. Many young students today are belated Taiwan independence advocates. Some of them have political motives. Most of them are merely hot-blooded and naive. These belated Taiwan independence advocates feel increasingly bewildered and anxious, not because they lack freedom, but because they failed to exercise their freedom in a responsible manner, and use it to seek correct solutions.

We prefer to characterize Cheng Nan-jung as an advocate of 100% free speech, rather than as an advocate of Taiwan independence. Freedom of speech is a right. But those who advocate Taiwan independence or oppose the CSSTA, must assume responsibility for their exercise of freedom. After all, Cheng Nan-jung's 100% freedom of speech should mean 100% freedom of speech not just for oneself, but for others as well. Does this society tolerate only anti-CSSTA speech, while prohibiting pro-CSSTA speech? Does this society tolerate only pro-Taiwan independence speech, while prohibiting anti-Taiwan independence speech? Is this the Taiwan pursued by Cheng Nan-jung or the Sunflower student movement?

Student movement members must not forsake the freedom to dialogue with oneself. Does one agree with Taiwan independence? Does one oppose the CSSTA? These are strategic choices for national survival. They are matters of knowledge. If one blindly advocates Taiwan independence and blindly opposed the CSSTA, one has denied oneself the freedom to dialogue with oneself. One's unfree self has lost the freedom to know itself. It can no longer acquire correct knowledge. It can no longer formulate a proper strategy for national survival. One must not become an intellectual who has forsaken the freedom to dialogue freely with himself.

Finally, let us pose two questions. Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated Taiwan independence. Twenty-five years later, the Sunflower student movement is still belated advocating Taiwan independence? Twenty-five years ago Cheng Nan-jung advocated 100% freedom of speech. Who knew that 25 years later the Sunflower student movement would impose a Black Terror that permits only one viewpoint.
 
台獨夕照太陽花
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.15 02:04 am

約在廿五年前,鄭南榕說:「我是鄭南榕,我主張台灣獨立。」廿五年後的今日,換人說:「我是林飛帆,我主張台灣獨立。」「我是陳為廷,我主張台灣獨立。」

鄭南榕在學運中已成新的台獨偶像。但是,二十多年來,鄭的家屬及追思者漸漸只強調他所主張的是「百分之百的言論自由」,而早已不再凸出其「主張台灣獨立」的角色。這是因為「言論自由」為普世價值,而「台灣獨立」則為與時推移的國家生存戰略選項。

鄭南榕主張「百分之百的言論自由」與「台灣獨立」,皆有其時代背景。當年正值解嚴前後,是刑法第一百條仍在生效的年代,主張「台灣獨立」的本身,即是主張「百分之百言論自由」的表徵。再者,在解嚴前後的時際,台灣內部的戒嚴政治積澱漸趨沸騰、冷戰仍在僵持、中國尚看不出「大國崛起」的跡象、美國亦未經九一一以後的削弱,何況當年「全球化」的概念尚只是初露端倪;因而,「台灣獨立」遂成為許多台灣人思酌的政治選項,包括鄭南榕在內。於是,一九九一年民進黨公布了《台獨黨綱》,時在鄭南榕一九八九年自焚身亡後的第二年。

但是,這次學運掀起了台獨的風潮,卻是在民進黨八年執政操作台獨大敗之後,而連民進黨主席蘇貞昌也說「不能再走回頭路搞台獨」的時際。倘若鄭南榕尚活在今日,他會不會仍然堅持以「台灣獨立」為國家的生存戰略,恐怕已沒有人能替他代言。

在此,必須認真區分「言論自由」與「正確的國家生存戰略的選項」之間的區別;並非任何「自由表述的言論」,都是「正確的國家戰略論述」。在鄭南榕那個戒嚴及刑法一百條的年代,只要喊出「台灣獨立」,即是「言論自由」的伸張;至於「台灣獨立」是否為「正確的國家戰略論述」,尚不及細究。但在今天,林飛帆及陳為廷主張「台灣獨立」,已經完全無關「言論自由」的禁制;當有了「百分之百的言論自由」之後,言論的「正確性」自較言論的「自由度」重要。亦即,有主張「台灣獨立」的言論自由,並不代表「台灣獨立」即是今天正確的國家生存戰略之選項。畢竟,「自由」與「正確」不是同義字,而往往是相反詞。

在鄭南榕之後,台獨的思與行已歷經二十餘年的試煉,如今則已是連民進黨都在討論要不要廢止或凍結《台獨黨綱》的年代;這絕不是因為民進黨沒有堅持《台獨黨綱》的「自由」,而是必須思考「台獨」是否為「正確的國家生存戰略」。但是,當台獨已猶如西斜落日,最後一抹餘暉竟照在太陽花上。

李敖說:「遲來的黨外,不是黨外。」這是說,在「等到已有百分之百的言論自由」之後才投入「黨外」,每多政治投機分子。如今,卻見不少年輕學生變成「遲來的台獨」,其中除少數幾人顯有政治圖謀外,大多均是出自熱血天真,因而這些「遲來的台獨」愈發令人不解與心疼。他們不是沒有「自由」,問題是在能否「負責任地使用自由」。

我們寧可仍將鄭南榕定位在「主張百分之百的言論自由」,而不必凸顯其主張「台灣獨立」。因為「言論自由」是主觀的權利,但主張「台灣獨立」或「反服貿」者,卻需承當起「使用自由的客觀責任」。畢竟,鄭南榕所說的「百分之百的言論自由」,應是讓自己及自己以外的所有人皆有「百分之百的言論自由」;倘若這個社會竟成了只容反服貿、不容支持服貿,只容贊同台獨、不容質疑台獨,難道這是鄭南榕或太陽花所追求的台灣?

根本的問題在於:學運的附從者絕對不能失去「自我對話的言論自由」。是否贊同台獨,與是否支持服貿,皆是國家生存戰略的抉擇,在本質上即應是一種知識的抉擇。倘若先將自己釘死在「台獨」及「反服貿」的意識形態上,即形同使自己失去了「自我知識對話的真正自由」,則「不自由的自我」其實已失去了自我的主體,即不易獲得「知識的正確」,尤其不易建立「正確的國家生存戰略」。千萬不要淪為失去「自我對話自由」的知識人!

最後提出兩個問題。鄭南榕在廿五年前主張「台獨」,太陽花在廿五年後難道還要做「遲來的台獨」?鄭南榕在廿五年前主張「百分之百的言論自由」,誰料廿五年後竟會出現「太陽花黑色恐怖一言堂」?