Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

High Court Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting, purged for refusing to cover up rampant Chen Shui-bian regime corruption

Comment: In “The Myth of Checks and Balances” I wrote:

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide “checks and balances” upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to “execute” policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that “limited government” inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

When this happens, “champions of democracy” assure us that what is needed is “reform.”

I disagree.

Democracies do not need to be reformed. They need to be replaced. Democracies and other monopolistic states degenerate into dictatorships because they are structurally defective therefore impervious to reform from their very inception.

Democracies and other monopolistic states must be replaced with non-monopolistic political arrangements that refrain from granting any single political entity an exclusive franchise on the use of force within any given jurisdiction.

Unless by some miracle the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake “democracy” and adopt market anarchism, the answer to the question “Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting” will remain: “Nobody.”

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

The Ministry of Justice, confronted with a boycott by all nine elected members of the Personnel Review Committee, has rammed through the reassignment of 26 chief prosecutors, the most controversial of which is the Hsieh Wen-ting case.

The elected members of the Personnel Review Committee issued a powerful statement to the effect that “Public prosecutors categorically must not retreat before such flagrant manipulation of the justice system by political forces. Otherwise the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office will become subordinate to the authority of the Executive branch, and public prosecutors will become political goons. The justice system categorically must not bow to political power.” The outrage they felt was clear from their language.

What we are witnessing is a war of annihilation and extermination, waged by malevolent political forces against the spirit of an independent judiciary. If Hsieh Wen-ting is forced out of office in this manner by a malevolent political authority, what will become of our legal system? How will administrators of justice enforce the law?

Over the past year, the fate of Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting opf the High Court Prosecutor’s Office has hinged on the outcome of a savage struggle between politics and law enforcement. Last April, the legislature vetoed Hsieh Wen-ting’s appointment as Prosecutor General. The reason was the opposition parties lacked confidence in Hsieh Wen-ting’s managerial style. One year later, it turns out that because Hsieh Wen-ting resisted pressure to sweep Chen Shui-bian’s State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal under the rug, he was summarily replaced.

According to reports, during the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal, political figures at the highest levels attempted through a variety of channels to discover from Hsieh Wen-ting’s own statements, the direction and progress of his investigation, but received no response. Word also spread that following the indictment in this case, political figures at the highest levels hoped that Hsieh Wen-ting would order public prosecutors to withdraw the charges, but Hsieh Wen-ting “resisted the will of those above him.” Case prosecutor Eric Chen confirmed that Hsieh Wen-ting said that “The pressure stops here.” Hsieh wanted them to be free from political considerations and to handle matters according to the letter and spirit of the law.

After all is said and done, one must admit that Hsieh Wen-ting has upheld his role as an administrator of justice. Meanwhile, looking back at the tumultuous changes over the past year, Chen Tsung-ming’s ascent to the throne of Prosecutor General due to People First Party collusion, represents shameful self-abasement. Scandals erupted again and again, and the Ministry of Justice covered them up again and again. Hsieh Wen-ting on the other hand, just missed becoming Prosecutor General because he “resisted the will of those above him.” His appointment to Prosecutor General was unexpectedly rejected. Is this not a political and judicial farce that leaves one unsure whether to laugh or to cry?

Hsieh Wen-ting’s replacement, at such a time and under such circumstances, cannot help but arouse suspicions. No wonder an atmosphere of indignation permeates prosecutorial circles. If the rumor that Hsieh Wen-ting was replaced because he “resisted the will of those above him” is true, then this is nothing less than the undisguised purging of political dissent from judicial circles.
Those in power have openly declared war upon the judicial world. “Obey me and live, Defy me and die!” “Refuse to cover up my corruption, and I will have your job!” Is this not a war of annihilation and extermination against justice?

Yesterday before the Examining Committee, elected committee members suggested that as long as the facts of the case remained in doubt, meetings should be suspended. But the Ministry of Justice ignored Examining Committee rules requiring a 2/3 quorum and held an illegal meeting which all nine elected committee members refused to attend.

In a single breath, the Ministry of Justice transferred 26 chief prosecutors, inspiring Committee Member Chen Chih-ming to question the urgent need to transfer personnel who were just now learning their jobs. On the Prosecutorial Reform Committee’s offical website, Chen Chih-ming pointed out that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-ling’s “abnormal behavior” might have been motivated by either selfish concerns or year end election concerns, in order to manipulate the vote-buying investigation process. Chen Chih-ming said that the situation was worse than imagined. If that is indeed the case, it amounts to a political purge of individuals of integrity within the justice system.

Chen Chih-ming considered this highly unethical. He pointed out that the motive for making such major reassignments was entirely selfish. If such selfish behavior set a negative precedent, it would undermine chief prosecutors who respected the law.

This is a ruling regime utterly devoid of moral virtue, which now hopes by means of its hold on political power to purge prosecutorial circles of any last vestiges of integrity, in order to advance its private interests. Can the nation and the justice system do nothing but look on as a ruling regime devoid of moral virtue practices a policy of “Obey me and live, defy me and die,” and creates a justice system utterly devoid of moral virtue?

Perhaps due to strong protests from elected committee members, yesterday’s roster contained hints of compromise. But Chen Tsung-ming sits securely on his throne. Hsieh Wen-ting meanwhile, leaves office on a bittersweet note. This reflects perfectly the current state of the justice system. The laws of god, the laws of man, public sentiment. Who can demand that Chen Tsung-ming step down? And who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Original Chinese below:

誰能救得了謝文定？
聯合報社論
2007/03/30

在全體九名「票選委員」拒絕出席人事審查會的情勢下，法務部橫柴入灶，強渡關山通過了二十六名檢察長的調動案，其中又以謝文定遭撤換最滋爭議。

「票選委員」發表強烈聲明：「政治力這般赤裸裸操弄司法，檢察體系絕不能退縮，否則檢察權就淪為行政權的附庸，檢察官以後就成為政治打手，司法在政治力面前絕不低頭。」痛心疾首，溢於言表。

目前的情勢，儼然是政治惡勢力對司法獨立精神的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰。謝文定若就這樣被政權暴力逼下了台，司法的正義如何維持？司法人的風骨何以為繼？

一年之間，高檢署檢察長謝文定的人生際遇，橫逆乖舛，不啻正是一部政治與司法爛纏惡鬥的荒謬劇。去年四月，謝文定的檢察總長人事案在朝野猜忌中被立院否決，原因是在野黨對謝文定的操持不具信心；詎料，一年後的今天，竟傳出謝文定因抗拒當局對國務機要費案之「關心」，而遭撤換的惡運。

據報導，政治高層在國務機要費案偵辦期間，透過各種管道欲從謝文定口中探知偵辦進度及方向，未獲謝的回應；甚且傳出至該案起訴後，又欲透過謝文定命檢方撤回起訴，謝文定亦「抗拒上意」。承辦檢察官陳瑞仁則證實，謝文定曾告以「各種壓力到我這裡為止」，要他們不要有任何政治思考，一切依法辦理。

謝文定畢竟維持了他的司法人風範。然而，回顧這一年來的翻騰變化，陳聰明因親民黨放水而坐上檢察總長的寶座，失格失態，醜聞頻傳，但法務部再三加以包庇迴護；與檢察總長失之交臂的謝文定，卻傳出因堅持原則，「抗拒上意」，其檢察長的職位竟將被罷黜。這豈不是一齣令人啼笑皆非的政治與司法交纏的荒謬劇？

謝文定在此時此際遭撤換，不能不令人疑竇叢生；也難怪在檢察官之間，一股不平之氣已是沸沸揚揚。倘若謝文定因「抗拒上意」而遭撤換的傳言屬實，則這不啻是當權者以赤裸裸的政權暴力在司法界誅除異己的行動。當權者不啻公然向司法界宣戰：「順我者生，逆我者死！」「你不包庇我的貪腐，我就叫你在司法界無以立足！」這難道不是對司法清流的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰？

昨日審查會前，「票選委員」主張在真相未明下應暫停開會；但法務部竟違反審查會必須有三分之二出席始能開會的規範，強行開會，九名「票選委員」遂全體拒絕出席。

法務部這次一口氣調動二十六名檢察長，被檢審委員陳誌銘公開質疑，在那些檢察長工作進入純熟之際豈有換人的急迫性？陳誌銘在檢改會網站上直率指出，法務部長施茂林「此舉很不尋常」，可能是廣植親私，亦可能是為年底選戰布樁，以操縱查賄動作。陳誌銘稱，事態比想像的還要「兇惡」；倘係如此，這豈不形同是執政當局對司法清流的一場政治整肅？

陳誌銘甚至認為：「這是一件很缺德的事！」他指出，大調動的動機很「自私」，若因這些自私的動機開了惡例，將使具司法屬性的檢察長地位變得更不穩定，所以「是一件很缺德的事」！

這是一個缺德的統治集團，現在又欲憑其政權暴力，在檢察界誅除清流，廣布親私；難道全體國人，及全體司法人、全體檢察官，真的只能眼睜睜地看著這個缺德的統治集團，欲用「順我生、逆我死」的殘暴手段，來炮製一個「缺德」的司法體系嗎？

或許是由於「票選委員」的強烈抗議，昨日通過的名單已有折衷意味。但是，陳聰明穩居大位，謝文定反而悲壯去職；這正是當前司法境況的寫照。天理、國法、民心，誰能叫陳聰明下台？又誰能救得了謝文定？

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

High Court Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting, purged for refusing to cover up rampant Chen Shui-bian regime corruption

Comment: In “The Myth of Checks and Balances” I wrote:

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide “checks and balances” upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to “execute” policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that “limited government” inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

When this happens, “champions of democracy” assure us that what is needed is “reform.”

I disagree.

Democracies do not need to be reformed. They need to be replaced. Democracies and other monopolistic states degenerate into dictatorships because they are structurally defective therefore impervious to reform from their very inception.

Democracies and other monopolistic states must be replaced with non-monopolistic political arrangements that refrain from granting any single political entity an exclusive franchise on the use of force within any given jurisdiction.

Unless by some miracle the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake “democracy” and adopt market anarchism, the answer to the question “Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting” will remain: “Nobody.”

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

The Ministry of Justice, confronted with a boycott by all nine elected members of the Personnel Review Committee, has rammed through the reassignment of 26 chief prosecutors, the most controversial of which is the Hsieh Wen-ting case.

The elected members of the Personnel Review Committee issued a powerful statement to the effect that “Public prosecutors categorically must not retreat before such flagrant manipulation of the justice system by political forces. Otherwise the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office will become subordinate to the authority of the Executive branch, and public prosecutors will become political goons. The justice system categorically must not bow to political power.” The outrage they felt was clear from their language.

What we are witnessing is a war of annihilation and extermination, waged by malevolent political forces against the spirit of an independent judiciary. If Hsieh Wen-ting is forced out of office in this manner by a malevolent political authority, what will become of our legal system? How will administrators of justice enforce the law?

Over the past year, the fate of Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting opf the High Court Prosecutor’s Office has hinged on the outcome of a savage struggle between politics and law enforcement. Last April, the legislature vetoed Hsieh Wen-ting’s appointment as Prosecutor General. The reason was the opposition parties lacked confidence in Hsieh Wen-ting’s managerial style. One year later, it turns out that because Hsieh Wen-ting resisted pressure to sweep Chen Shui-bian’s State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal under the rug, he was summarily replaced.

According to reports, during the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal, political figures at the highest levels attempted through a variety of channels to discover from Hsieh Wen-ting’s own statements, the direction and progress of his investigation, but received no response. Word also spread that following the indictment in this case, political figures at the highest levels hoped that Hsieh Wen-ting would order public prosecutors to withdraw the charges, but Hsieh Wen-ting “resisted the will of those above him.” Case prosecutor Eric Chen confirmed that Hsieh Wen-ting said that “The pressure stops here.” Hsieh wanted them to be free from political considerations and to handle matters according to the letter and spirit of the law.

After all is said and done, one must admit that Hsieh Wen-ting has upheld his role as an administrator of justice. Meanwhile, looking back at the tumultuous changes over the past year, Chen Tsung-ming’s ascent to the throne of Prosecutor General due to People First Party collusion, represents shameful self-abasement. Scandals erupted again and again, and the Ministry of Justice covered them up again and again. Hsieh Wen-ting on the other hand, just missed becoming Prosecutor General because he “resisted the will of those above him.” His appointment to Prosecutor General was unexpectedly rejected. Is this not a political and judicial farce that leaves one unsure whether to laugh or to cry?

Hsieh Wen-ting’s replacement, at such a time and under such circumstances, cannot help but arouse suspicions. No wonder an atmosphere of indignation permeates prosecutorial circles. If the rumor that Hsieh Wen-ting was replaced because he “resisted the will of those above him” is true, then this is nothing less than the undisguised purging of political dissent from judicial circles.
Those in power have openly declared war upon the judicial world. “Obey me and live, Defy me and die!” “Refuse to cover up my corruption, and I will have your job!” Is this not a war of annihilation and extermination against justice?

Yesterday before the Examining Committee, elected committee members suggested that as long as the facts of the case remained in doubt, meetings should be suspended. But the Ministry of Justice ignored Examining Committee rules requiring a 2/3 quorum and held an illegal meeting which all nine elected committee members refused to attend.

In a single breath, the Ministry of Justice transferred 26 chief prosecutors, inspiring Committee Member Chen Chih-ming to question the urgent need to transfer personnel who were just now learning their jobs. On the Prosecutorial Reform Committee’s offical website, Chen Chih-ming pointed out that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-ling’s “abnormal behavior” might have been motivated by either selfish concerns or year end election concerns, in order to manipulate the vote-buying investigation process. Chen Chih-ming said that the situation was worse than imagined. If that is indeed the case, it amounts to a political purge of individuals of integrity within the justice system.

Chen Chih-ming considered this highly unethical. He pointed out that the motive for making such major reassignments was entirely selfish. If such selfish behavior set a negative precedent, it would undermine chief prosecutors who respected the law.

This is a ruling regime utterly devoid of moral virtue, which now hopes by means of its hold on political power to purge prosecutorial circles of any last vestiges of integrity, in order to advance its private interests. Can the nation and the justice system do nothing but look on as a ruling regime devoid of moral virtue practices a policy of “Obey me and live, defy me and die,” and creates a justice system utterly devoid of moral virtue?

Perhaps due to strong protests from elected committee members, yesterday’s roster contained hints of compromise. But Chen Tsung-ming sits securely on his throne. Hsieh Wen-ting meanwhile, leaves office on a bittersweet note. This reflects perfectly the current state of the justice system. The laws of god, the laws of man, public sentiment. Who can demand that Chen Tsung-ming step down? And who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Original Chinese below:

誰能救得了謝文定？
聯合報社論
2007/03/30

在全體九名「票選委員」拒絕出席人事審查會的情勢下，法務部橫柴入灶，強渡關山通過了二十六名檢察長的調動案，其中又以謝文定遭撤換最滋爭議。

「票選委員」發表強烈聲明：「政治力這般赤裸裸操弄司法，檢察體系絕不能退縮，否則檢察權就淪為行政權的附庸，檢察官以後就成為政治打手，司法在政治力面前絕不低頭。」痛心疾首，溢於言表。

目前的情勢，儼然是政治惡勢力對司法獨立精神的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰。謝文定若就這樣被政權暴力逼下了台，司法的正義如何維持？司法人的風骨何以為繼？

一年之間，高檢署檢察長謝文定的人生際遇，橫逆乖舛，不啻正是一部政治與司法爛纏惡鬥的荒謬劇。去年四月，謝文定的檢察總長人事案在朝野猜忌中被立院否決，原因是在野黨對謝文定的操持不具信心；詎料，一年後的今天，竟傳出謝文定因抗拒當局對國務機要費案之「關心」，而遭撤換的惡運。

據報導，政治高層在國務機要費案偵辦期間，透過各種管道欲從謝文定口中探知偵辦進度及方向，未獲謝的回應；甚且傳出至該案起訴後，又欲透過謝文定命檢方撤回起訴，謝文定亦「抗拒上意」。承辦檢察官陳瑞仁則證實，謝文定曾告以「各種壓力到我這裡為止」，要他們不要有任何政治思考，一切依法辦理。

謝文定畢竟維持了他的司法人風範。然而，回顧這一年來的翻騰變化，陳聰明因親民黨放水而坐上檢察總長的寶座，失格失態，醜聞頻傳，但法務部再三加以包庇迴護；與檢察總長失之交臂的謝文定，卻傳出因堅持原則，「抗拒上意」，其檢察長的職位竟將被罷黜。這豈不是一齣令人啼笑皆非的政治與司法交纏的荒謬劇？

謝文定在此時此際遭撤換，不能不令人疑竇叢生；也難怪在檢察官之間，一股不平之氣已是沸沸揚揚。倘若謝文定因「抗拒上意」而遭撤換的傳言屬實，則這不啻是當權者以赤裸裸的政權暴力在司法界誅除異己的行動。當權者不啻公然向司法界宣戰：「順我者生，逆我者死！」「你不包庇我的貪腐，我就叫你在司法界無以立足！」這難道不是對司法清流的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰？

昨日審查會前，「票選委員」主張在真相未明下應暫停開會；但法務部竟違反審查會必須有三分之二出席始能開會的規範，強行開會，九名「票選委員」遂全體拒絕出席。

法務部這次一口氣調動二十六名檢察長，被檢審委員陳誌銘公開質疑，在那些檢察長工作進入純熟之際豈有換人的急迫性？陳誌銘在檢改會網站上直率指出，法務部長施茂林「此舉很不尋常」，可能是廣植親私，亦可能是為年底選戰布樁，以操縱查賄動作。陳誌銘稱，事態比想像的還要「兇惡」；倘係如此，這豈不形同是執政當局對司法清流的一場政治整肅？

陳誌銘甚至認為：「這是一件很缺德的事！」他指出，大調動的動機很「自私」，若因這些自私的動機開了惡例，將使具司法屬性的檢察長地位變得更不穩定，所以「是一件很缺德的事」！

這是一個缺德的統治集團，現在又欲憑其政權暴力，在檢察界誅除清流，廣布親私；難道全體國人，及全體司法人、全體檢察官，真的只能眼睜睜地看著這個缺德的統治集團，欲用「順我生、逆我死」的殘暴手段，來炮製一個「缺德」的司法體系嗎？

或許是由於「票選委員」的強烈抗議，昨日通過的名單已有折衷意味。但是，陳聰明穩居大位，謝文定反而悲壯去職；這正是當前司法境況的寫照。天理、國法、民心，誰能叫陳聰明下台？又誰能救得了謝文定？

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

High Court Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting, purged for refusing to cover up rampant Chen Shui-bian regime corruption

Comment: In “The Myth of Checks and Balances” I wrote:

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide “checks and balances” upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to “execute” policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that “limited government” inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

When this happens, “champions of democracy” assure us that what is needed is “reform.”

I disagree.

Democracies do not need to be reformed. They need to be replaced. Democracies and other monopolistic states degenerate into dictatorships because they are structurally defective therefore impervious to reform from their very inception.

Democracies and other monopolistic states must be replaced with non-monopolistic political arrangements that refrain from granting any single political entity an exclusive franchise on the use of force within any given jurisdiction.

Unless by some miracle the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake “democracy” and adopt market anarchism, the answer to the question “Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting” will remain: “Nobody.”

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

The Ministry of Justice, confronted with a boycott by all nine elected members of the Personnel Review Committee, has rammed through the reassignment of 26 chief prosecutors, the most controversial of which is the Hsieh Wen-ting case.

The elected members of the Personnel Review Committee issued a powerful statement to the effect that “Public prosecutors categorically must not retreat before such flagrant manipulation of the justice system by political forces. Otherwise the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office will become subordinate to the authority of the Executive branch, and public prosecutors will become political goons. The justice system categorically must not bow to political power.” The outrage they felt was clear from their language.

What we are witnessing is a war of annihilation and extermination, waged by malevolent political forces against the spirit of an independent judiciary. If Hsieh Wen-ting is forced out of office in this manner by a malevolent political authority, what will become of our legal system? How will administrators of justice enforce the law?

Over the past year, the fate of Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting opf the High Court Prosecutor’s Office has hinged on the outcome of a savage struggle between politics and law enforcement. Last April, the legislature vetoed Hsieh Wen-ting’s appointment as Prosecutor General. The reason was the opposition parties lacked confidence in Hsieh Wen-ting’s managerial style. One year later, it turns out that because Hsieh Wen-ting resisted pressure to sweep Chen Shui-bian’s State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal under the rug, he was summarily replaced.

According to reports, during the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal, political figures at the highest levels attempted through a variety of channels to discover from Hsieh Wen-ting’s own statements, the direction and progress of his investigation, but received no response. Word also spread that following the indictment in this case, political figures at the highest levels hoped that Hsieh Wen-ting would order public prosecutors to withdraw the charges, but Hsieh Wen-ting “resisted the will of those above him.” Case prosecutor Eric Chen confirmed that Hsieh Wen-ting said that “The pressure stops here.” Hsieh wanted them to be free from political considerations and to handle matters according to the letter and spirit of the law.

After all is said and done, one must admit that Hsieh Wen-ting has upheld his role as an administrator of justice. Meanwhile, looking back at the tumultuous changes over the past year, Chen Tsung-ming’s ascent to the throne of Prosecutor General due to People First Party collusion, represents shameful self-abasement. Scandals erupted again and again, and the Ministry of Justice covered them up again and again. Hsieh Wen-ting on the other hand, just missed becoming Prosecutor General because he “resisted the will of those above him.” His appointment to Prosecutor General was unexpectedly rejected. Is this not a political and judicial farce that leaves one unsure whether to laugh or to cry?

Hsieh Wen-ting’s replacement, at such a time and under such circumstances, cannot help but arouse suspicions. No wonder an atmosphere of indignation permeates prosecutorial circles. If the rumor that Hsieh Wen-ting was replaced because he “resisted the will of those above him” is true, then this is nothing less than the undisguised purging of political dissent from judicial circles.
Those in power have openly declared war upon the judicial world. “Obey me and live, Defy me and die!” “Refuse to cover up my corruption, and I will have your job!” Is this not a war of annihilation and extermination against justice?

Yesterday before the Examining Committee, elected committee members suggested that as long as the facts of the case remained in doubt, meetings should be suspended. But the Ministry of Justice ignored Examining Committee rules requiring a 2/3 quorum and held an illegal meeting which all nine elected committee members refused to attend.

In a single breath, the Ministry of Justice transferred 26 chief prosecutors, inspiring Committee Member Chen Chih-ming to question the urgent need to transfer personnel who were just now learning their jobs. On the Prosecutorial Reform Committee’s offical website, Chen Chih-ming pointed out that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-ling’s “abnormal behavior” might have been motivated by either selfish concerns or year end election concerns, in order to manipulate the vote-buying investigation process. Chen Chih-ming said that the situation was worse than imagined. If that is indeed the case, it amounts to a political purge of individuals of integrity within the justice system.

Chen Chih-ming considered this highly unethical. He pointed out that the motive for making such major reassignments was entirely selfish. If such selfish behavior set a negative precedent, it would undermine chief prosecutors who respected the law.

This is a ruling regime utterly devoid of moral virtue, which now hopes by means of its hold on political power to purge prosecutorial circles of any last vestiges of integrity, in order to advance its private interests. Can the nation and the justice system do nothing but look on as a ruling regime devoid of moral virtue practices a policy of “Obey me and live, defy me and die,” and creates a justice system utterly devoid of moral virtue?

Perhaps due to strong protests from elected committee members, yesterday’s roster contained hints of compromise. But Chen Tsung-ming sits securely on his throne. Hsieh Wen-ting meanwhile, leaves office on a bittersweet note. This reflects perfectly the current state of the justice system. The laws of god, the laws of man, public sentiment. Who can demand that Chen Tsung-ming step down? And who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Original Chinese below:

誰能救得了謝文定？
聯合報社論
2007/03/30

在全體九名「票選委員」拒絕出席人事審查會的情勢下，法務部橫柴入灶，強渡關山通過了二十六名檢察長的調動案，其中又以謝文定遭撤換最滋爭議。

「票選委員」發表強烈聲明：「政治力這般赤裸裸操弄司法，檢察體系絕不能退縮，否則檢察權就淪為行政權的附庸，檢察官以後就成為政治打手，司法在政治力面前絕不低頭。」痛心疾首，溢於言表。

目前的情勢，儼然是政治惡勢力對司法獨立精神的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰。謝文定若就這樣被政權暴力逼下了台，司法的正義如何維持？司法人的風骨何以為繼？

一年之間，高檢署檢察長謝文定的人生際遇，橫逆乖舛，不啻正是一部政治與司法爛纏惡鬥的荒謬劇。去年四月，謝文定的檢察總長人事案在朝野猜忌中被立院否決，原因是在野黨對謝文定的操持不具信心；詎料，一年後的今天，竟傳出謝文定因抗拒當局對國務機要費案之「關心」，而遭撤換的惡運。

據報導，政治高層在國務機要費案偵辦期間，透過各種管道欲從謝文定口中探知偵辦進度及方向，未獲謝的回應；甚且傳出至該案起訴後，又欲透過謝文定命檢方撤回起訴，謝文定亦「抗拒上意」。承辦檢察官陳瑞仁則證實，謝文定曾告以「各種壓力到我這裡為止」，要他們不要有任何政治思考，一切依法辦理。

謝文定畢竟維持了他的司法人風範。然而，回顧這一年來的翻騰變化，陳聰明因親民黨放水而坐上檢察總長的寶座，失格失態，醜聞頻傳，但法務部再三加以包庇迴護；與檢察總長失之交臂的謝文定，卻傳出因堅持原則，「抗拒上意」，其檢察長的職位竟將被罷黜。這豈不是一齣令人啼笑皆非的政治與司法交纏的荒謬劇？

謝文定在此時此際遭撤換，不能不令人疑竇叢生；也難怪在檢察官之間，一股不平之氣已是沸沸揚揚。倘若謝文定因「抗拒上意」而遭撤換的傳言屬實，則這不啻是當權者以赤裸裸的政權暴力在司法界誅除異己的行動。當權者不啻公然向司法界宣戰：「順我者生，逆我者死！」「你不包庇我的貪腐，我就叫你在司法界無以立足！」這難道不是對司法清流的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰？

昨日審查會前，「票選委員」主張在真相未明下應暫停開會；但法務部竟違反審查會必須有三分之二出席始能開會的規範，強行開會，九名「票選委員」遂全體拒絕出席。

法務部這次一口氣調動二十六名檢察長，被檢審委員陳誌銘公開質疑，在那些檢察長工作進入純熟之際豈有換人的急迫性？陳誌銘在檢改會網站上直率指出，法務部長施茂林「此舉很不尋常」，可能是廣植親私，亦可能是為年底選戰布樁，以操縱查賄動作。陳誌銘稱，事態比想像的還要「兇惡」；倘係如此，這豈不形同是執政當局對司法清流的一場政治整肅？

陳誌銘甚至認為：「這是一件很缺德的事！」他指出，大調動的動機很「自私」，若因這些自私的動機開了惡例，將使具司法屬性的檢察長地位變得更不穩定，所以「是一件很缺德的事」！

這是一個缺德的統治集團，現在又欲憑其政權暴力，在檢察界誅除清流，廣布親私；難道全體國人，及全體司法人、全體檢察官，真的只能眼睜睜地看著這個缺德的統治集團，欲用「順我生、逆我死」的殘暴手段，來炮製一個「缺德」的司法體系嗎？

或許是由於「票選委員」的強烈抗議，昨日通過的名單已有折衷意味。但是，陳聰明穩居大位，謝文定反而悲壯去職；這正是當前司法境況的寫照。天理、國法、民心，誰能叫陳聰明下台？又誰能救得了謝文定？

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

High Court Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting, purged for refusing to cover up rampant Chen Shui-bian regime corruption

Comment: In “The Myth of Checks and Balances” I wrote:

In theory, a democratically elected president is merely the highest ranking official in one of three or more coequal branches of government, the executive branch.

In reality, in any monopolistic state with a presidential system, the president is an elective dictator, the legislature is a debating society, and the judiciary is a rubber stamp. Real world experience has demonstrated that over time, the executive invariably co-opts the judiciary and marginalizes the legislature.

In theory, the coequal branches of government provide “checks and balances” upon each other, preventing them from ganging up upon the individual citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

In reality, because the executive is the branch that has been delegated the power to “execute” policy (pun intended), it invariably usurps any and all powers delegated to the other branches of a monopolistic state. Real world experience has shown that “limited government” inevitably morphs into unlimited government, and that the executive is always the branch that winds up monopolizing that limitless power. It makes no difference whether the executive was popularly elected, self-appointed, or hereditary.

When this happens, “champions of democracy” assure us that what is needed is “reform.”

I disagree.

Democracies do not need to be reformed. They need to be replaced. Democracies and other monopolistic states degenerate into dictatorships because they are structurally defective therefore impervious to reform from their very inception.

Democracies and other monopolistic states must be replaced with non-monopolistic political arrangements that refrain from granting any single political entity an exclusive franchise on the use of force within any given jurisdiction.

Unless by some miracle the Chinese people on Taiwan forsake “democracy” and adopt market anarchism, the answer to the question “Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting” will remain: “Nobody.”

Who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 30, 2007

The Ministry of Justice, confronted with a boycott by all nine elected members of the Personnel Review Committee, has rammed through the reassignment of 26 chief prosecutors, the most controversial of which is the Hsieh Wen-ting case.

The elected members of the Personnel Review Committee issued a powerful statement to the effect that “Public prosecutors categorically must not retreat before such flagrant manipulation of the justice system by political forces. Otherwise the authority of the Public Prosecutor’s Office will become subordinate to the authority of the Executive branch, and public prosecutors will become political goons. The justice system categorically must not bow to political power.” The outrage they felt was clear from their language.

What we are witnessing is a war of annihilation and extermination, waged by malevolent political forces against the spirit of an independent judiciary. If Hsieh Wen-ting is forced out of office in this manner by a malevolent political authority, what will become of our legal system? How will administrators of justice enforce the law?

Over the past year, the fate of Chief Prosecutor Hsieh Wen-ting opf the High Court Prosecutor’s Office has hinged on the outcome of a savage struggle between politics and law enforcement. Last April, the legislature vetoed Hsieh Wen-ting’s appointment as Prosecutor General. The reason was the opposition parties lacked confidence in Hsieh Wen-ting’s managerial style. One year later, it turns out that because Hsieh Wen-ting resisted pressure to sweep Chen Shui-bian’s State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal under the rug, he was summarily replaced.

According to reports, during the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal, political figures at the highest levels attempted through a variety of channels to discover from Hsieh Wen-ting’s own statements, the direction and progress of his investigation, but received no response. Word also spread that following the indictment in this case, political figures at the highest levels hoped that Hsieh Wen-ting would order public prosecutors to withdraw the charges, but Hsieh Wen-ting “resisted the will of those above him.” Case prosecutor Eric Chen confirmed that Hsieh Wen-ting said that “The pressure stops here.” Hsieh wanted them to be free from political considerations and to handle matters according to the letter and spirit of the law.

After all is said and done, one must admit that Hsieh Wen-ting has upheld his role as an administrator of justice. Meanwhile, looking back at the tumultuous changes over the past year, Chen Tsung-ming’s ascent to the throne of Prosecutor General due to People First Party collusion, represents shameful self-abasement. Scandals erupted again and again, and the Ministry of Justice covered them up again and again. Hsieh Wen-ting on the other hand, just missed becoming Prosecutor General because he “resisted the will of those above him.” His appointment to Prosecutor General was unexpectedly rejected. Is this not a political and judicial farce that leaves one unsure whether to laugh or to cry?

Hsieh Wen-ting’s replacement, at such a time and under such circumstances, cannot help but arouse suspicions. No wonder an atmosphere of indignation permeates prosecutorial circles. If the rumor that Hsieh Wen-ting was replaced because he “resisted the will of those above him” is true, then this is nothing less than the undisguised purging of political dissent from judicial circles.
Those in power have openly declared war upon the judicial world. “Obey me and live, Defy me and die!” “Refuse to cover up my corruption, and I will have your job!” Is this not a war of annihilation and extermination against justice?

Yesterday before the Examining Committee, elected committee members suggested that as long as the facts of the case remained in doubt, meetings should be suspended. But the Ministry of Justice ignored Examining Committee rules requiring a 2/3 quorum and held an illegal meeting which all nine elected committee members refused to attend.

In a single breath, the Ministry of Justice transferred 26 chief prosecutors, inspiring Committee Member Chen Chih-ming to question the urgent need to transfer personnel who were just now learning their jobs. On the Prosecutorial Reform Committee’s offical website, Chen Chih-ming pointed out that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-ling’s “abnormal behavior” might have been motivated by either selfish concerns or year end election concerns, in order to manipulate the vote-buying investigation process. Chen Chih-ming said that the situation was worse than imagined. If that is indeed the case, it amounts to a political purge of individuals of integrity within the justice system.

Chen Chih-ming considered this highly unethical. He pointed out that the motive for making such major reassignments was entirely selfish. If such selfish behavior set a negative precedent, it would undermine chief prosecutors who respected the law.

This is a ruling regime utterly devoid of moral virtue, which now hopes by means of its hold on political power to purge prosecutorial circles of any last vestiges of integrity, in order to advance its private interests. Can the nation and the justice system do nothing but look on as a ruling regime devoid of moral virtue practices a policy of “Obey me and live, defy me and die,” and creates a justice system utterly devoid of moral virtue?

Perhaps due to strong protests from elected committee members, yesterday’s roster contained hints of compromise. But Chen Tsung-ming sits securely on his throne. Hsieh Wen-ting meanwhile, leaves office on a bittersweet note. This reflects perfectly the current state of the justice system. The laws of god, the laws of man, public sentiment. Who can demand that Chen Tsung-ming step down? And who can save Hsieh Wen-ting?

Original Chinese below:

誰能救得了謝文定？
聯合報社論
2007/03/30

在全體九名「票選委員」拒絕出席人事審查會的情勢下，法務部橫柴入灶，強渡關山通過了二十六名檢察長的調動案，其中又以謝文定遭撤換最滋爭議。

「票選委員」發表強烈聲明：「政治力這般赤裸裸操弄司法，檢察體系絕不能退縮，否則檢察權就淪為行政權的附庸，檢察官以後就成為政治打手，司法在政治力面前絕不低頭。」痛心疾首，溢於言表。

目前的情勢，儼然是政治惡勢力對司法獨立精神的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰。謝文定若就這樣被政權暴力逼下了台，司法的正義如何維持？司法人的風骨何以為繼？

一年之間，高檢署檢察長謝文定的人生際遇，橫逆乖舛，不啻正是一部政治與司法爛纏惡鬥的荒謬劇。去年四月，謝文定的檢察總長人事案在朝野猜忌中被立院否決，原因是在野黨對謝文定的操持不具信心；詎料，一年後的今天，竟傳出謝文定因抗拒當局對國務機要費案之「關心」，而遭撤換的惡運。

據報導，政治高層在國務機要費案偵辦期間，透過各種管道欲從謝文定口中探知偵辦進度及方向，未獲謝的回應；甚且傳出至該案起訴後，又欲透過謝文定命檢方撤回起訴，謝文定亦「抗拒上意」。承辦檢察官陳瑞仁則證實，謝文定曾告以「各種壓力到我這裡為止」，要他們不要有任何政治思考，一切依法辦理。

謝文定畢竟維持了他的司法人風範。然而，回顧這一年來的翻騰變化，陳聰明因親民黨放水而坐上檢察總長的寶座，失格失態，醜聞頻傳，但法務部再三加以包庇迴護；與檢察總長失之交臂的謝文定，卻傳出因堅持原則，「抗拒上意」，其檢察長的職位竟將被罷黜。這豈不是一齣令人啼笑皆非的政治與司法交纏的荒謬劇？

謝文定在此時此際遭撤換，不能不令人疑竇叢生；也難怪在檢察官之間，一股不平之氣已是沸沸揚揚。倘若謝文定因「抗拒上意」而遭撤換的傳言屬實，則這不啻是當權者以赤裸裸的政權暴力在司法界誅除異己的行動。當權者不啻公然向司法界宣戰：「順我者生，逆我者死！」「你不包庇我的貪腐，我就叫你在司法界無以立足！」這難道不是對司法清流的殲滅戰與掃蕩戰？

昨日審查會前，「票選委員」主張在真相未明下應暫停開會；但法務部竟違反審查會必須有三分之二出席始能開會的規範，強行開會，九名「票選委員」遂全體拒絕出席。

法務部這次一口氣調動二十六名檢察長，被檢審委員陳誌銘公開質疑，在那些檢察長工作進入純熟之際豈有換人的急迫性？陳誌銘在檢改會網站上直率指出，法務部長施茂林「此舉很不尋常」，可能是廣植親私，亦可能是為年底選戰布樁，以操縱查賄動作。陳誌銘稱，事態比想像的還要「兇惡」；倘係如此，這豈不形同是執政當局對司法清流的一場政治整肅？

陳誌銘甚至認為：「這是一件很缺德的事！」他指出，大調動的動機很「自私」，若因這些自私的動機開了惡例，將使具司法屬性的檢察長地位變得更不穩定，所以「是一件很缺德的事」！

這是一個缺德的統治集團，現在又欲憑其政權暴力，在檢察界誅除清流，廣布親私；難道全體國人，及全體司法人、全體檢察官，真的只能眼睜睜地看著這個缺德的統治集團，欲用「順我生、逆我死」的殘暴手段，來炮製一個「缺德」的司法體系嗎？

或許是由於「票選委員」的強烈抗議，昨日通過的名單已有折衷意味。但是，陳聰明穩居大位，謝文定反而悲壯去職；這正是當前司法境況的寫照。天理、國法、民心，誰能叫陳聰明下台？又誰能救得了謝文定？

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 28, 2007


Julian McMahon as Dr. Christian Troy and Dylan Walsh as Dr. Sean McNamara — cosmetic surgeons to the stars in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


The Carver, a masked serial killer who disfigures and rapes his victims — one of the primary villains in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


Mason Verger, after Dr. Hannibal Lecter was finished with him in “Hannibal” (2001, directed by Ridley Scott, written by Thomas Harris, David Mamet, and Steve Zaillian)

In the coming year, the Republic of China government on Taiwan will hold both a legislative election and a presidential election. These elections will not be civilized expressions of the democratic process. They will be unconstrained, bloody warfare, particularly the presidential election. With the polls only a year off, the stench of blood is already forcing people to hold their noses.

The culprit responsible for this murderous atmosphere is not individual Blue or Green camp political candidates, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regime. Wave upon wave of ruling regime and ruling party campaigns for the “Rectification of Names” have left people in stunned disbelief. The central government and local governments have been toppling bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek, demolishing walls surrounding public parks, conducting witch hunts against fellow Green camp candidates suspected of harboring “Blue” sympathies. The DPP has ganged up on the so-called “Eleven Bandits” within their own party. The DPP has accused the New Tide Faction of being “pro reunification.” The DPP has even demanded that the March 29 celebration of Youth Day be abolished in favor of a “nativist” Youth Day, that David Lee be replaced as defacto ambassador to Washington, and that the term “National Language” be abolished. This succession of crude moves has left Taiwan unrecognizable.

Actually, most people on Taiwan saw through the phony “Rectification of Names” campaign long ago. They know that although the pretext for the campaign is the pursuit of justice and the healing of historic wounds, the underlying motive is the incitement of social polarization to gloss over the incompetence of the ruling regime. The result is historical wounds are not permitted to heal, and Taiwan is continually subjected to newly inflicted traumas.

Ruling DPP campaigns are not entirely “negative.” One might describe them as “positively destructive.” These destructive campaigns have wiped out hard-won advances in the Republic of China’s political evolution. This is no accident. Besides revealing that the DPP has painted itself into a corner, they reveal that the DPP has betrayed its own democratic ideals. Realizing that it has reached the end of its rope, the DPP has resorted to doomsday tactics. When a ruling party treats electoral politics as a form of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” yet prattles on about demanding justice and promoting a “normal country,” clearly the people count for nothing.

That a ruling party could dream up an “Exclude Blue” policy and even an “Aggressive Exclude Blue” policy, shows that the people don’t matter, that the DPP considers the greater half of the nation’s citizens to be its hated enemy. Yu Hsi-kuen characterized opinion polls as a means by which the Blue camp uses the Green camp as a surrogate for bringing Blue offspring into the world. He even compared the struggle between Blue and Green to the campaign of ethnic cleansing waged by Serbia against Bosnia. Now how fearsome was that racially-motivated war of hatred?

What will happen if the DPP insists on seeing half of its own citizens as hated enemies, if it refuses to promote social reconciliation and national unity? Taiwan will remain a divided society, and Blue voters will become a permanent underclass, denied respect and denied a voice.

The DPP has long divided people into two categories. Now, even more perversely, it is dividing members of its own party into “us” and “them.” It is conducting witch hunts within its own party, accusing rivals of being “reds.” Comrades who demanded reform while Chen Shui-bian was mired in corruption have been denounced as traitors. This is an indication that the DPP has lost its collective mind.

The New Tide Faction once tutored others in Taiwan independence theory. Recently it urged the adoption of pragmatic cross-Straits relations. As a result it has been denounced by Deep Green extremists as “pro unification” and “pro China.” The power struggle within the DPP resembles a feeding frenzy. The “Rectification of Names” campaign has provided DPP leaders with the perfect pretext for dog eat dog political struggles.

DPP cutthroat tactics were once directed outwards, against KMT machine politicians and party faithful. Today they are directed against members of their own party, against anyone who dares to speak with a different voice. Continued cutthroat tactics will result in a Deep Green state of siege in which dissent is forbidden. What will remain except the cries of former comrades as they hurl accusations against one another and settle personal scores?

Toppling bronze statues and abolishing the national language are nothing more than smoke screens, irrelevant to the “Rectification of Names” campaign. What the ruling regime really seeks to exploit is the hatred and resentment generated by its campaign of destruction. That alone can mask DPP incompetence and win public approval. If the DPP really wants to “rectify names,” more democratic means are available. Instead it ignores public opinion, adopts the crudest methods available, and commits the most flagrant abuses of power imaginable.

Under such circumstances, Blue and Green oriented citizens will become increasingly alienated from each other, social consensus will become increasingly difficult to achieve, and a democratic future will become increasingly problematic.

How can a ruling party that incites ethnic hatred possibly bring about a harmonious society? The current wave of destruction cannot give Taiwan a new face or a new identity. All it can do is destroy the people’s feelings of self-esteem and their sense of identity.

The cutthroat campaigns of 2004 neutered the Blue camp. The cutthroat campaign of 2008 will put Taiwan on the DPP chopping block, turning the people into fish waiting to be filleted. The “Rectification of Names” campaign is butchery in the guise of cosmetic surgery. All it can do is transform the face of Taiwan into the face of a monster.

Original Chinese below:

拆、排、切、廢：民進黨對台灣的整形或毀容？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/28

未來這一年，台灣面對的將不只是一場立委選舉及一場總統大選，情況顯示，這兩場選舉當然都不會是君子的民主競賽，而是全面瘋狂的廝殺與攻伐，尤以總統大選為然。距離投票還有一年，空氣中的血腥氣味，已經臭得令人掩鼻。

掀 起這股漫天殺氣的禍首，不是個別的藍綠候選人，而是大權在握的執政者。最近一波波黨政聯手假「正名」為題炒作的事件，令人目不暇給：中央與地方齊進的拆銅 像、拆圍牆；提名民調從「排藍」到深度排藍；民進黨內圍剿「十一寇」，連新潮流都被指為「統派」；乃至於要廢三二九重新票選本土青年節，駐美代表李大維被 撤換，到「國語」一詞將廢除。這一連串粗暴的拆、排、切、廢，每一刀都為台灣刻下傷痕。

這波「正名」運動的虛假及虛無，其實早為多數國人所看清。表面上，說是為了追求未了的轉型正義，為了平撫歷史的傷痕；實際上，卻是以製造社會矛盾為手段，來掩飾執政者的無能和無理。其結果，是歷史的舊傷未能癒合，台灣卻又增添新的創痛和恐懼。

且 看，「拆、排、切、廢」，不僅全都是「否定式」的思維，也全都是「破」和「毀」的手段。這「四毀」，在台灣民主進程中的此際突然鋪天蓋地湧現，絕非偶然。 除了顯示民進黨已陷入前進無路的政治死巷，也說明它已耗盡自身的民主理想；自暴自棄下，才如此不惜用「毀人」與「自毀」的絕地戰策，來鋌而走險，只圖僥倖 一逞。當一個執政黨把選戰打到這種「共趨淪亡」的地步，還能奢談什麼轉型正義或正常國家，它眼裡根本就沒有人民了。

作為執政黨，竟想得出 「排藍」、「深度排藍」這樣的機關，它眼中何止沒有人民，簡直是將大半國民當成仇敵。當游錫?將普通民調形容為藍軍對綠營的「借腹生子」，亦形同將藍綠之 爭擬喻為當年塞爾維亞對波士尼亞的「種族清洗」，那是多可怕的種族仇恨意識？試想，民進黨若始終把半數百姓視同仇敵，從不設法增進社會的和解、國家的團 結，台灣不僅將注定是個分裂的社會，藍色選民也儼然將成為民進黨治下的「賤民」階級，永遠得不到尊重，意見也不會被聽取。

民進黨不僅把人 民分成兩類，更變態的是，它更在黨內玩起抓鬼遊戲，丟紅帽、分敵我。所有曾在陳水扁貪瀆案期間發出「改革」呼籲的同志，全被當成「叛徒」聲討，這正是民進 黨精神錯亂的徵兆。而早年曾提供台獨理論指導的新潮流系，因主張在兩岸關係上採取務實作為，被深綠激進派貼上「統派」、「中國派」的標籤；這顯示民進黨內 部已為奪權殺紅了眼，「正名」恰好提供了一個同志相殘的大藉口。

當年民進黨的「割喉」戰術，是一片一片把對方的樁腳、支持者切過來；但現在，它割喉卻割到黨裡面來了，把不同調的人一片一片切出去，把不同的聲音一刀一刀割開來。再切下去，那塊禁止異議的深綠基地，除了鼓吹仇恨和私仇必報的殺聲，將剩下什麼？

拆 銅像也好，廢國語也罷，說穿了都只是煙幕彈，對台灣「正名」毫無實質助益。執政者想要的，只是從破毀的過程中輻射出來的仇恨和怨氣，那才可以遮掩它施政的 無能，並從中攫取戰功。民進黨若真要「正名」，原有更民主的途徑可以通行，但它卻完全罔顧民意，逕自採取了最粗暴、最濫權的手段。如此一來，在社會的向度 上，藍綠愈發斷離；在認同的向度上，台灣意識的凝聚愈發不易；在政治的向度上，民主的前程也愈發堪憂。

一個鼓吹仇恨的執政黨，豈可能帶來 和諧的社會？這一波的「拆、排、切、廢」大破大毀，看不出能為台灣創造一個全新的面孔或身分，反而將毀掉人民原有的自信和認同。二○○四年的割喉戰，被閹 割的是藍軍；二○○八之役，躺在民進黨砧板上的是台灣，而人民是待宰的魚肉。這場政治屠夫操刀的「正名」整形手術，只怕是要將台灣徹底毀容吧！

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 28, 2007


Julian McMahon as Dr. Christian Troy and Dylan Walsh as Dr. Sean McNamara — cosmetic surgeons to the stars in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


The Carver, a masked serial killer who disfigures and rapes his victims — one of the primary villains in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


Mason Verger, after Dr. Hannibal Lecter was finished with him in “Hannibal” (2001, directed by Ridley Scott, written by Thomas Harris, David Mamet, and Steve Zaillian)

In the coming year, the Republic of China government on Taiwan will hold both a legislative election and a presidential election. These elections will not be civilized expressions of the democratic process. They will be unconstrained, bloody warfare, particularly the presidential election. With the polls only a year off, the stench of blood is already forcing people to hold their noses.

The culprit responsible for this murderous atmosphere is not individual Blue or Green camp political candidates, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regime. Wave upon wave of ruling regime and ruling party campaigns for the “Rectification of Names” have left people in stunned disbelief. The central government and local governments have been toppling bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek, demolishing walls surrounding public parks, conducting witch hunts against fellow Green camp candidates suspected of harboring “Blue” sympathies. The DPP has ganged up on the so-called “Eleven Bandits” within their own party. The DPP has accused the New Tide Faction of being “pro reunification.” The DPP has even demanded that the March 29 celebration of Youth Day be abolished in favor of a “nativist” Youth Day, that David Lee be replaced as defacto ambassador to Washington, and that the term “National Language” be abolished. This succession of crude moves has left Taiwan unrecognizable.

Actually, most people on Taiwan saw through the phony “Rectification of Names” campaign long ago. They know that although the pretext for the campaign is the pursuit of justice and the healing of historic wounds, the underlying motive is the incitement of social polarization to gloss over the incompetence of the ruling regime. The result is historical wounds are not permitted to heal, and Taiwan is continually subjected to newly inflicted traumas.

Ruling DPP campaigns are not entirely “negative.” One might describe them as “positively destructive.” These destructive campaigns have wiped out hard-won advances in the Republic of China’s political evolution. This is no accident. Besides revealing that the DPP has painted itself into a corner, they reveal that the DPP has betrayed its own democratic ideals. Realizing that it has reached the end of its rope, the DPP has resorted to doomsday tactics. When a ruling party treats electoral politics as a form of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” yet prattles on about demanding justice and promoting a “normal country,” clearly the people count for nothing.

That a ruling party could dream up an “Exclude Blue” policy and even an “Aggressive Exclude Blue” policy, shows that the people don’t matter, that the DPP considers the greater half of the nation’s citizens to be its hated enemy. Yu Hsi-kuen characterized opinion polls as a means by which the Blue camp uses the Green camp as a surrogate for bringing Blue offspring into the world. He even compared the struggle between Blue and Green to the campaign of ethnic cleansing waged by Serbia against Bosnia. Now how fearsome was that racially-motivated war of hatred?

What will happen if the DPP insists on seeing half of its own citizens as hated enemies, if it refuses to promote social reconciliation and national unity? Taiwan will remain a divided society, and Blue voters will become a permanent underclass, denied respect and denied a voice.

The DPP has long divided people into two categories. Now, even more perversely, it is dividing members of its own party into “us” and “them.” It is conducting witch hunts within its own party, accusing rivals of being “reds.” Comrades who demanded reform while Chen Shui-bian was mired in corruption have been denounced as traitors. This is an indication that the DPP has lost its collective mind.

The New Tide Faction once tutored others in Taiwan independence theory. Recently it urged the adoption of pragmatic cross-Straits relations. As a result it has been denounced by Deep Green extremists as “pro unification” and “pro China.” The power struggle within the DPP resembles a feeding frenzy. The “Rectification of Names” campaign has provided DPP leaders with the perfect pretext for dog eat dog political struggles.

DPP cutthroat tactics were once directed outwards, against KMT machine politicians and party faithful. Today they are directed against members of their own party, against anyone who dares to speak with a different voice. Continued cutthroat tactics will result in a Deep Green state of siege in which dissent is forbidden. What will remain except the cries of former comrades as they hurl accusations against one another and settle personal scores?

Toppling bronze statues and abolishing the national language are nothing more than smoke screens, irrelevant to the “Rectification of Names” campaign. What the ruling regime really seeks to exploit is the hatred and resentment generated by its campaign of destruction. That alone can mask DPP incompetence and win public approval. If the DPP really wants to “rectify names,” more democratic means are available. Instead it ignores public opinion, adopts the crudest methods available, and commits the most flagrant abuses of power imaginable.

Under such circumstances, Blue and Green oriented citizens will become increasingly alienated from each other, social consensus will become increasingly difficult to achieve, and a democratic future will become increasingly problematic.

How can a ruling party that incites ethnic hatred possibly bring about a harmonious society? The current wave of destruction cannot give Taiwan a new face or a new identity. All it can do is destroy the people’s feelings of self-esteem and their sense of identity.

The cutthroat campaigns of 2004 neutered the Blue camp. The cutthroat campaign of 2008 will put Taiwan on the DPP chopping block, turning the people into fish waiting to be filleted. The “Rectification of Names” campaign is butchery in the guise of cosmetic surgery. All it can do is transform the face of Taiwan into the face of a monster.

Original Chinese below:

拆、排、切、廢：民進黨對台灣的整形或毀容？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/28

未來這一年，台灣面對的將不只是一場立委選舉及一場總統大選，情況顯示，這兩場選舉當然都不會是君子的民主競賽，而是全面瘋狂的廝殺與攻伐，尤以總統大選為然。距離投票還有一年，空氣中的血腥氣味，已經臭得令人掩鼻。

掀 起這股漫天殺氣的禍首，不是個別的藍綠候選人，而是大權在握的執政者。最近一波波黨政聯手假「正名」為題炒作的事件，令人目不暇給：中央與地方齊進的拆銅 像、拆圍牆；提名民調從「排藍」到深度排藍；民進黨內圍剿「十一寇」，連新潮流都被指為「統派」；乃至於要廢三二九重新票選本土青年節，駐美代表李大維被 撤換，到「國語」一詞將廢除。這一連串粗暴的拆、排、切、廢，每一刀都為台灣刻下傷痕。

這波「正名」運動的虛假及虛無，其實早為多數國人所看清。表面上，說是為了追求未了的轉型正義，為了平撫歷史的傷痕；實際上，卻是以製造社會矛盾為手段，來掩飾執政者的無能和無理。其結果，是歷史的舊傷未能癒合，台灣卻又增添新的創痛和恐懼。

且 看，「拆、排、切、廢」，不僅全都是「否定式」的思維，也全都是「破」和「毀」的手段。這「四毀」，在台灣民主進程中的此際突然鋪天蓋地湧現，絕非偶然。 除了顯示民進黨已陷入前進無路的政治死巷，也說明它已耗盡自身的民主理想；自暴自棄下，才如此不惜用「毀人」與「自毀」的絕地戰策，來鋌而走險，只圖僥倖 一逞。當一個執政黨把選戰打到這種「共趨淪亡」的地步，還能奢談什麼轉型正義或正常國家，它眼裡根本就沒有人民了。

作為執政黨，竟想得出 「排藍」、「深度排藍」這樣的機關，它眼中何止沒有人民，簡直是將大半國民當成仇敵。當游錫?將普通民調形容為藍軍對綠營的「借腹生子」，亦形同將藍綠之 爭擬喻為當年塞爾維亞對波士尼亞的「種族清洗」，那是多可怕的種族仇恨意識？試想，民進黨若始終把半數百姓視同仇敵，從不設法增進社會的和解、國家的團 結，台灣不僅將注定是個分裂的社會，藍色選民也儼然將成為民進黨治下的「賤民」階級，永遠得不到尊重，意見也不會被聽取。

民進黨不僅把人 民分成兩類，更變態的是，它更在黨內玩起抓鬼遊戲，丟紅帽、分敵我。所有曾在陳水扁貪瀆案期間發出「改革」呼籲的同志，全被當成「叛徒」聲討，這正是民進 黨精神錯亂的徵兆。而早年曾提供台獨理論指導的新潮流系，因主張在兩岸關係上採取務實作為，被深綠激進派貼上「統派」、「中國派」的標籤；這顯示民進黨內 部已為奪權殺紅了眼，「正名」恰好提供了一個同志相殘的大藉口。

當年民進黨的「割喉」戰術，是一片一片把對方的樁腳、支持者切過來；但現在，它割喉卻割到黨裡面來了，把不同調的人一片一片切出去，把不同的聲音一刀一刀割開來。再切下去，那塊禁止異議的深綠基地，除了鼓吹仇恨和私仇必報的殺聲，將剩下什麼？

拆 銅像也好，廢國語也罷，說穿了都只是煙幕彈，對台灣「正名」毫無實質助益。執政者想要的，只是從破毀的過程中輻射出來的仇恨和怨氣，那才可以遮掩它施政的 無能，並從中攫取戰功。民進黨若真要「正名」，原有更民主的途徑可以通行，但它卻完全罔顧民意，逕自採取了最粗暴、最濫權的手段。如此一來，在社會的向度 上，藍綠愈發斷離；在認同的向度上，台灣意識的凝聚愈發不易；在政治的向度上，民主的前程也愈發堪憂。

一個鼓吹仇恨的執政黨，豈可能帶來 和諧的社會？這一波的「拆、排、切、廢」大破大毀，看不出能為台灣創造一個全新的面孔或身分，反而將毀掉人民原有的自信和認同。二○○四年的割喉戰，被閹 割的是藍軍；二○○八之役，躺在民進黨砧板上的是台灣，而人民是待宰的魚肉。這場政治屠夫操刀的「正名」整形手術，只怕是要將台灣徹底毀容吧！

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 28, 2007


Julian McMahon as Dr. Christian Troy and Dylan Walsh as Dr. Sean McNamara — cosmetic surgeons to the stars in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


The Carver, a masked serial killer who disfigures and rapes his victims — one of the primary villains in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


Mason Verger, after Dr. Hannibal Lecter was finished with him in “Hannibal” (2001, directed by Ridley Scott, written by Thomas Harris, David Mamet, and Steve Zaillian)

In the coming year, the Republic of China government on Taiwan will hold both a legislative election and a presidential election. These elections will not be civilized expressions of the democratic process. They will be unconstrained, bloody warfare, particularly the presidential election. With the polls only a year off, the stench of blood is already forcing people to hold their noses.

The culprit responsible for this murderous atmosphere is not individual Blue or Green camp political candidates, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regime. Wave upon wave of ruling regime and ruling party campaigns for the “Rectification of Names” have left people in stunned disbelief. The central government and local governments have been toppling bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek, demolishing walls surrounding public parks, conducting witch hunts against fellow Green camp candidates suspected of harboring “Blue” sympathies. The DPP has ganged up on the so-called “Eleven Bandits” within their own party. The DPP has accused the New Tide Faction of being “pro reunification.” The DPP has even demanded that the March 29 celebration of Youth Day be abolished in favor of a “nativist” Youth Day, that David Lee be replaced as defacto ambassador to Washington, and that the term “National Language” be abolished. This succession of crude moves has left Taiwan unrecognizable.

Actually, most people on Taiwan saw through the phony “Rectification of Names” campaign long ago. They know that although the pretext for the campaign is the pursuit of justice and the healing of historic wounds, the underlying motive is the incitement of social polarization to gloss over the incompetence of the ruling regime. The result is historical wounds are not permitted to heal, and Taiwan is continually subjected to newly inflicted traumas.

Ruling DPP campaigns are not entirely “negative.” One might describe them as “positively destructive.” These destructive campaigns have wiped out hard-won advances in the Republic of China’s political evolution. This is no accident. Besides revealing that the DPP has painted itself into a corner, they reveal that the DPP has betrayed its own democratic ideals. Realizing that it has reached the end of its rope, the DPP has resorted to doomsday tactics. When a ruling party treats electoral politics as a form of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” yet prattles on about demanding justice and promoting a “normal country,” clearly the people count for nothing.

That a ruling party could dream up an “Exclude Blue” policy and even an “Aggressive Exclude Blue” policy, shows that the people don’t matter, that the DPP considers the greater half of the nation’s citizens to be its hated enemy. Yu Hsi-kuen characterized opinion polls as a means by which the Blue camp uses the Green camp as a surrogate for bringing Blue offspring into the world. He even compared the struggle between Blue and Green to the campaign of ethnic cleansing waged by Serbia against Bosnia. Now how fearsome was that racially-motivated war of hatred?

What will happen if the DPP insists on seeing half of its own citizens as hated enemies, if it refuses to promote social reconciliation and national unity? Taiwan will remain a divided society, and Blue voters will become a permanent underclass, denied respect and denied a voice.

The DPP has long divided people into two categories. Now, even more perversely, it is dividing members of its own party into “us” and “them.” It is conducting witch hunts within its own party, accusing rivals of being “reds.” Comrades who demanded reform while Chen Shui-bian was mired in corruption have been denounced as traitors. This is an indication that the DPP has lost its collective mind.

The New Tide Faction once tutored others in Taiwan independence theory. Recently it urged the adoption of pragmatic cross-Straits relations. As a result it has been denounced by Deep Green extremists as “pro unification” and “pro China.” The power struggle within the DPP resembles a feeding frenzy. The “Rectification of Names” campaign has provided DPP leaders with the perfect pretext for dog eat dog political struggles.

DPP cutthroat tactics were once directed outwards, against KMT machine politicians and party faithful. Today they are directed against members of their own party, against anyone who dares to speak with a different voice. Continued cutthroat tactics will result in a Deep Green state of siege in which dissent is forbidden. What will remain except the cries of former comrades as they hurl accusations against one another and settle personal scores?

Toppling bronze statues and abolishing the national language are nothing more than smoke screens, irrelevant to the “Rectification of Names” campaign. What the ruling regime really seeks to exploit is the hatred and resentment generated by its campaign of destruction. That alone can mask DPP incompetence and win public approval. If the DPP really wants to “rectify names,” more democratic means are available. Instead it ignores public opinion, adopts the crudest methods available, and commits the most flagrant abuses of power imaginable.

Under such circumstances, Blue and Green oriented citizens will become increasingly alienated from each other, social consensus will become increasingly difficult to achieve, and a democratic future will become increasingly problematic.

How can a ruling party that incites ethnic hatred possibly bring about a harmonious society? The current wave of destruction cannot give Taiwan a new face or a new identity. All it can do is destroy the people’s feelings of self-esteem and their sense of identity.

The cutthroat campaigns of 2004 neutered the Blue camp. The cutthroat campaign of 2008 will put Taiwan on the DPP chopping block, turning the people into fish waiting to be filleted. The “Rectification of Names” campaign is butchery in the guise of cosmetic surgery. All it can do is transform the face of Taiwan into the face of a monster.

Original Chinese below:

拆、排、切、廢：民進黨對台灣的整形或毀容？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/28

未來這一年，台灣面對的將不只是一場立委選舉及一場總統大選，情況顯示，這兩場選舉當然都不會是君子的民主競賽，而是全面瘋狂的廝殺與攻伐，尤以總統大選為然。距離投票還有一年，空氣中的血腥氣味，已經臭得令人掩鼻。

掀 起這股漫天殺氣的禍首，不是個別的藍綠候選人，而是大權在握的執政者。最近一波波黨政聯手假「正名」為題炒作的事件，令人目不暇給：中央與地方齊進的拆銅 像、拆圍牆；提名民調從「排藍」到深度排藍；民進黨內圍剿「十一寇」，連新潮流都被指為「統派」；乃至於要廢三二九重新票選本土青年節，駐美代表李大維被 撤換，到「國語」一詞將廢除。這一連串粗暴的拆、排、切、廢，每一刀都為台灣刻下傷痕。

這波「正名」運動的虛假及虛無，其實早為多數國人所看清。表面上，說是為了追求未了的轉型正義，為了平撫歷史的傷痕；實際上，卻是以製造社會矛盾為手段，來掩飾執政者的無能和無理。其結果，是歷史的舊傷未能癒合，台灣卻又增添新的創痛和恐懼。

且 看，「拆、排、切、廢」，不僅全都是「否定式」的思維，也全都是「破」和「毀」的手段。這「四毀」，在台灣民主進程中的此際突然鋪天蓋地湧現，絕非偶然。 除了顯示民進黨已陷入前進無路的政治死巷，也說明它已耗盡自身的民主理想；自暴自棄下，才如此不惜用「毀人」與「自毀」的絕地戰策，來鋌而走險，只圖僥倖 一逞。當一個執政黨把選戰打到這種「共趨淪亡」的地步，還能奢談什麼轉型正義或正常國家，它眼裡根本就沒有人民了。

作為執政黨，竟想得出 「排藍」、「深度排藍」這樣的機關，它眼中何止沒有人民，簡直是將大半國民當成仇敵。當游錫?將普通民調形容為藍軍對綠營的「借腹生子」，亦形同將藍綠之 爭擬喻為當年塞爾維亞對波士尼亞的「種族清洗」，那是多可怕的種族仇恨意識？試想，民進黨若始終把半數百姓視同仇敵，從不設法增進社會的和解、國家的團 結，台灣不僅將注定是個分裂的社會，藍色選民也儼然將成為民進黨治下的「賤民」階級，永遠得不到尊重，意見也不會被聽取。

民進黨不僅把人 民分成兩類，更變態的是，它更在黨內玩起抓鬼遊戲，丟紅帽、分敵我。所有曾在陳水扁貪瀆案期間發出「改革」呼籲的同志，全被當成「叛徒」聲討，這正是民進 黨精神錯亂的徵兆。而早年曾提供台獨理論指導的新潮流系，因主張在兩岸關係上採取務實作為，被深綠激進派貼上「統派」、「中國派」的標籤；這顯示民進黨內 部已為奪權殺紅了眼，「正名」恰好提供了一個同志相殘的大藉口。

當年民進黨的「割喉」戰術，是一片一片把對方的樁腳、支持者切過來；但現在，它割喉卻割到黨裡面來了，把不同調的人一片一片切出去，把不同的聲音一刀一刀割開來。再切下去，那塊禁止異議的深綠基地，除了鼓吹仇恨和私仇必報的殺聲，將剩下什麼？

拆 銅像也好，廢國語也罷，說穿了都只是煙幕彈，對台灣「正名」毫無實質助益。執政者想要的，只是從破毀的過程中輻射出來的仇恨和怨氣，那才可以遮掩它施政的 無能，並從中攫取戰功。民進黨若真要「正名」，原有更民主的途徑可以通行，但它卻完全罔顧民意，逕自採取了最粗暴、最濫權的手段。如此一來，在社會的向度 上，藍綠愈發斷離；在認同的向度上，台灣意識的凝聚愈發不易；在政治的向度上，民主的前程也愈發堪憂。

一個鼓吹仇恨的執政黨，豈可能帶來 和諧的社會？這一波的「拆、排、切、廢」大破大毀，看不出能為台灣創造一個全新的面孔或身分，反而將毀掉人民原有的自信和認同。二○○四年的割喉戰，被閹 割的是藍軍；二○○八之役，躺在民進黨砧板上的是台灣，而人民是待宰的魚肉。這場政治屠夫操刀的「正名」整形手術，只怕是要將台灣徹底毀容吧！

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?

Is the DPP performing Cosmetic Surgery or Butchery?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 28, 2007


Julian McMahon as Dr. Christian Troy and Dylan Walsh as Dr. Sean McNamara — cosmetic surgeons to the stars in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


The Carver, a masked serial killer who disfigures and rapes his victims — one of the primary villains in the outstanding TV series “Nip/Tuck” (2003 – ????, created by Ryan Murphy)


Mason Verger, after Dr. Hannibal Lecter was finished with him in “Hannibal” (2001, directed by Ridley Scott, written by Thomas Harris, David Mamet, and Steve Zaillian)

In the coming year, the Republic of China government on Taiwan will hold both a legislative election and a presidential election. These elections will not be civilized expressions of the democratic process. They will be unconstrained, bloody warfare, particularly the presidential election. With the polls only a year off, the stench of blood is already forcing people to hold their noses.

The culprit responsible for this murderous atmosphere is not individual Blue or Green camp political candidates, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regime. Wave upon wave of ruling regime and ruling party campaigns for the “Rectification of Names” have left people in stunned disbelief. The central government and local governments have been toppling bronze statues of Chiang Kai-shek, demolishing walls surrounding public parks, conducting witch hunts against fellow Green camp candidates suspected of harboring “Blue” sympathies. The DPP has ganged up on the so-called “Eleven Bandits” within their own party. The DPP has accused the New Tide Faction of being “pro reunification.” The DPP has even demanded that the March 29 celebration of Youth Day be abolished in favor of a “nativist” Youth Day, that David Lee be replaced as defacto ambassador to Washington, and that the term “National Language” be abolished. This succession of crude moves has left Taiwan unrecognizable.

Actually, most people on Taiwan saw through the phony “Rectification of Names” campaign long ago. They know that although the pretext for the campaign is the pursuit of justice and the healing of historic wounds, the underlying motive is the incitement of social polarization to gloss over the incompetence of the ruling regime. The result is historical wounds are not permitted to heal, and Taiwan is continually subjected to newly inflicted traumas.

Ruling DPP campaigns are not entirely “negative.” One might describe them as “positively destructive.” These destructive campaigns have wiped out hard-won advances in the Republic of China’s political evolution. This is no accident. Besides revealing that the DPP has painted itself into a corner, they reveal that the DPP has betrayed its own democratic ideals. Realizing that it has reached the end of its rope, the DPP has resorted to doomsday tactics. When a ruling party treats electoral politics as a form of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” yet prattles on about demanding justice and promoting a “normal country,” clearly the people count for nothing.

That a ruling party could dream up an “Exclude Blue” policy and even an “Aggressive Exclude Blue” policy, shows that the people don’t matter, that the DPP considers the greater half of the nation’s citizens to be its hated enemy. Yu Hsi-kuen characterized opinion polls as a means by which the Blue camp uses the Green camp as a surrogate for bringing Blue offspring into the world. He even compared the struggle between Blue and Green to the campaign of ethnic cleansing waged by Serbia against Bosnia. Now how fearsome was that racially-motivated war of hatred?

What will happen if the DPP insists on seeing half of its own citizens as hated enemies, if it refuses to promote social reconciliation and national unity? Taiwan will remain a divided society, and Blue voters will become a permanent underclass, denied respect and denied a voice.

The DPP has long divided people into two categories. Now, even more perversely, it is dividing members of its own party into “us” and “them.” It is conducting witch hunts within its own party, accusing rivals of being “reds.” Comrades who demanded reform while Chen Shui-bian was mired in corruption have been denounced as traitors. This is an indication that the DPP has lost its collective mind.

The New Tide Faction once tutored others in Taiwan independence theory. Recently it urged the adoption of pragmatic cross-Straits relations. As a result it has been denounced by Deep Green extremists as “pro unification” and “pro China.” The power struggle within the DPP resembles a feeding frenzy. The “Rectification of Names” campaign has provided DPP leaders with the perfect pretext for dog eat dog political struggles.

DPP cutthroat tactics were once directed outwards, against KMT machine politicians and party faithful. Today they are directed against members of their own party, against anyone who dares to speak with a different voice. Continued cutthroat tactics will result in a Deep Green state of siege in which dissent is forbidden. What will remain except the cries of former comrades as they hurl accusations against one another and settle personal scores?

Toppling bronze statues and abolishing the national language are nothing more than smoke screens, irrelevant to the “Rectification of Names” campaign. What the ruling regime really seeks to exploit is the hatred and resentment generated by its campaign of destruction. That alone can mask DPP incompetence and win public approval. If the DPP really wants to “rectify names,” more democratic means are available. Instead it ignores public opinion, adopts the crudest methods available, and commits the most flagrant abuses of power imaginable.

Under such circumstances, Blue and Green oriented citizens will become increasingly alienated from each other, social consensus will become increasingly difficult to achieve, and a democratic future will become increasingly problematic.

How can a ruling party that incites ethnic hatred possibly bring about a harmonious society? The current wave of destruction cannot give Taiwan a new face or a new identity. All it can do is destroy the people’s feelings of self-esteem and their sense of identity.

The cutthroat campaigns of 2004 neutered the Blue camp. The cutthroat campaign of 2008 will put Taiwan on the DPP chopping block, turning the people into fish waiting to be filleted. The “Rectification of Names” campaign is butchery in the guise of cosmetic surgery. All it can do is transform the face of Taiwan into the face of a monster.

Original Chinese below:

拆、排、切、廢：民進黨對台灣的整形或毀容？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/28

未來這一年，台灣面對的將不只是一場立委選舉及一場總統大選，情況顯示，這兩場選舉當然都不會是君子的民主競賽，而是全面瘋狂的廝殺與攻伐，尤以總統大選為然。距離投票還有一年，空氣中的血腥氣味，已經臭得令人掩鼻。

掀 起這股漫天殺氣的禍首，不是個別的藍綠候選人，而是大權在握的執政者。最近一波波黨政聯手假「正名」為題炒作的事件，令人目不暇給：中央與地方齊進的拆銅 像、拆圍牆；提名民調從「排藍」到深度排藍；民進黨內圍剿「十一寇」，連新潮流都被指為「統派」；乃至於要廢三二九重新票選本土青年節，駐美代表李大維被 撤換，到「國語」一詞將廢除。這一連串粗暴的拆、排、切、廢，每一刀都為台灣刻下傷痕。

這波「正名」運動的虛假及虛無，其實早為多數國人所看清。表面上，說是為了追求未了的轉型正義，為了平撫歷史的傷痕；實際上，卻是以製造社會矛盾為手段，來掩飾執政者的無能和無理。其結果，是歷史的舊傷未能癒合，台灣卻又增添新的創痛和恐懼。

且 看，「拆、排、切、廢」，不僅全都是「否定式」的思維，也全都是「破」和「毀」的手段。這「四毀」，在台灣民主進程中的此際突然鋪天蓋地湧現，絕非偶然。 除了顯示民進黨已陷入前進無路的政治死巷，也說明它已耗盡自身的民主理想；自暴自棄下，才如此不惜用「毀人」與「自毀」的絕地戰策，來鋌而走險，只圖僥倖 一逞。當一個執政黨把選戰打到這種「共趨淪亡」的地步，還能奢談什麼轉型正義或正常國家，它眼裡根本就沒有人民了。

作為執政黨，竟想得出 「排藍」、「深度排藍」這樣的機關，它眼中何止沒有人民，簡直是將大半國民當成仇敵。當游錫?將普通民調形容為藍軍對綠營的「借腹生子」，亦形同將藍綠之 爭擬喻為當年塞爾維亞對波士尼亞的「種族清洗」，那是多可怕的種族仇恨意識？試想，民進黨若始終把半數百姓視同仇敵，從不設法增進社會的和解、國家的團 結，台灣不僅將注定是個分裂的社會，藍色選民也儼然將成為民進黨治下的「賤民」階級，永遠得不到尊重，意見也不會被聽取。

民進黨不僅把人 民分成兩類，更變態的是，它更在黨內玩起抓鬼遊戲，丟紅帽、分敵我。所有曾在陳水扁貪瀆案期間發出「改革」呼籲的同志，全被當成「叛徒」聲討，這正是民進 黨精神錯亂的徵兆。而早年曾提供台獨理論指導的新潮流系，因主張在兩岸關係上採取務實作為，被深綠激進派貼上「統派」、「中國派」的標籤；這顯示民進黨內 部已為奪權殺紅了眼，「正名」恰好提供了一個同志相殘的大藉口。

當年民進黨的「割喉」戰術，是一片一片把對方的樁腳、支持者切過來；但現在，它割喉卻割到黨裡面來了，把不同調的人一片一片切出去，把不同的聲音一刀一刀割開來。再切下去，那塊禁止異議的深綠基地，除了鼓吹仇恨和私仇必報的殺聲，將剩下什麼？

拆 銅像也好，廢國語也罷，說穿了都只是煙幕彈，對台灣「正名」毫無實質助益。執政者想要的，只是從破毀的過程中輻射出來的仇恨和怨氣，那才可以遮掩它施政的 無能，並從中攫取戰功。民進黨若真要「正名」，原有更民主的途徑可以通行，但它卻完全罔顧民意，逕自採取了最粗暴、最濫權的手段。如此一來，在社會的向度 上，藍綠愈發斷離；在認同的向度上，台灣意識的凝聚愈發不易；在政治的向度上，民主的前程也愈發堪憂。

一個鼓吹仇恨的執政黨，豈可能帶來 和諧的社會？這一波的「拆、排、切、廢」大破大毀，看不出能為台灣創造一個全新的面孔或身分，反而將毀掉人民原有的自信和認同。二○○四年的割喉戰，被閹 割的是藍軍；二○○八之役，躺在民進黨砧板上的是台灣，而人民是待宰的魚肉。這場政治屠夫操刀的「正名」整形手術，只怕是要將台灣徹底毀容吧！

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 27, 2007

Comment: Among the many myths promulgated by democracies and other monopolistic states, is the myth that “public property” belongs to “The People.”

The reality of course is that there is no such thing as “The People.” There are only millions of sovereign and independent individuals, most of whom are strangers to each other, each of whom is understandably constrained by “rational ignorance.”

The predictable consequence of this reality is that “public property” invariably ends up as the private property of powerful officials and their wealthy cronies.


TVBS “News Nightclub” expose of DPP political patronage in the form of endless sweetheart deals: Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit System scandal, Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation scandal, China Airlines scandal, Electronic Toll Collection scandal, Mega Bank scandal

TVBS “News Nightclub” expose of DPP political patronage in the form of endless sweetheart deals: Waterland Financial Holdings scandal, Taiwan Development Bank scandal, Chung Hua Telecom scandal, Asia Pacific Broadband Telecom scandal, Taiwan Television Enterprise scandal

Anyone who expects the token safeguards incorporated into democracies and other monopolistic states to provide “checks and balances” on such officials within the nominally separate, but actually monolithic “branches of government,” is hopelessly naive.

The harsh reality is that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, within the context of a monopolistic state, is a contradiction in terms.

No matter how hard one tries to divide a monopolistic state into “branches” the reality is that all such “branches” live off the same “tax revenues,” better known as protection money, extracted by force from “taxpayers,” better known as victims of extortion.

As long as a nation is ruled by a conventional monopolistic state rather than served by Private Defense Agencies (PDAs), any ostensibly “separate and independent branches” of government will always perceive themselves as inseparable parts of the same government, the one government, the only government.

And the outrages described in the following China Times editorial will play themselves out endlessly like a broken record.

See:
Economic Selections, not Democratic Elections
The Myth of Checks and Balances

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 27, 2007

Recently Premier Su Tseng-chang was ambushed on the road to the 2008 presidency. During the primary debates, Premier Su found himself surrounded and under attack by Yu Hsi-kuen and Deep Green organizations, who accused him of not being sufficiently Green, i.e., not being militantly pro-independence. They also accused him of “forcing the king to abdicate” when Chen Shui-bian was under attack by Red Shirt Army protesters. In order to clear the primary hurdles, Premier Su felt compelled to defend himself against accusations that he was pressuring Chen to step down, and attempted to clear himself through various channels. But frankly speaking, whether he pressured Chen to step down is merely a tempest in a teacup, a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) family affair. And if Premier Su used language that pressured a corrupt leader to step down, so what? That hardly constitutes a character defect. By contrast, the conduct of Su cabinet officials, publicly revealed yesterday by Fuji television network representative Sumio Hasegawa, truly was something to be ashamed of.

Yesterday, during a press conference convened by former Taiwan Television Enterprise Ltd (TTV) Chairman Lai Kuo-chou, the Fuji television network representative revealed an astonishing piece of inside information regarding the role of Executive Yuan cabinet members during the public auction of TTV shares. Hasegawa indicated that on January 17, he received a luncheon invitation from Government Information Office (GIO) Chief Cheng Wen-tsang. Present at the luncheon, in addition to Chief Cheng, were Minister of Economic Affairs Steven Chen, and the executive editor, chairman of the board, and deputy editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times Group. During the session, GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang declared that “Fuji is free to sell its shares to anyone it wishes, but it must sell its shares to the Liberty Times, which is in attendance today.” After which he indicated through Steve Chen that he had already instructed the other Japanese companies to sell their shares to the Liberty Times. Following Sumio Hasegawa’s press conference, neither of the two cabinet members, Cheng Wen-tsang or Steve Chen, denied having such conversations. They merely muttered terse evasions. Clearly what Hasegawa said was true. Shame on the Su cabinet and the ruling DPP government, whose attempt to influence the sale of TTV shares has been publicly exposed by Japanese reporters.

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: “Fuji is free to sell its shares to anyone it wishes … ”

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: ” … but it must sell its shares to the Liberty Times. The right to the shares must be sold to a media organization we can trust. ”

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: “For the Liberty Times to control TTV is the best choice.”

Seven years ago, when the DPP was an opposition party, it blasted the Kuomintang (KMT) for “Party-State Capitalism.” But the behavior of the DPP since it assumed office has made the KMT look like a piker. The only difference between it and the KMT is its outer trappings. During its early years the KMT government took over a large number of Japanese state-owned enterprises and private enterprises. Some were turned over to the national government to become state-owned enterprises. Others were turned over to the KMT to become party-owned enterprises. Over time, these enterprises, through long-term investments and the transfer of capital, yielded a ponderous system in which no distinction was made between the party and the state. The DPP has been in power for seven years. Although it has not been able to turn these enterprises over to outsiders, it has been able to cite demands for the privatization of state-owned enterprises and calls for the public ownership of the media as pretexts to grant financial groups close to the DPP wave upon wave of benefits, resulting in an impressive Party-State Capitalist system of its own.

Beginning with the Orwellian-named “Second Financial Reform” program three years ago, which had an immediate impact on the ongoing public offering of TTV shares, the DPP blueprint for its own version of “Party-State Capitalism” has been clear for all to see. In 2006, the Chang Hua Bank was acquired by Taishin Financial Holdings. No matter what the details were, the transaction was certainly advantageous to the Wu family, otherwise they would not have submitted a bid. In 2004 the government kicked out former China Development Financial Holding Corporation (CDFH) Chairperson Chen Min-hsun. Then, working hand in glove with the Ku family, which owned shares for less than six months, allowed the latter to acquire an unlimited number of proxies, and allowed control of a company worth hundreds of billions in New Taiwan Dollars to be delivered into the hands of financial groups with close ties to the First Family. The shares of these financial groups, according to reports, are overvalued. The board of directors of Taishin and China Trust hold a pitifully small number of shares. Their hostile takeovers of Chang Hua Bank and CDFH were accomplished by means of financial subterfuge, using “other peoples’ money.” The actual investment of the financial groups was minuscule. Therefore, the DPP government’s “Second Financial Reform” is in truth nothing more than an expedient means of transferring control of major corporations to financial groups friendly to the ruling regime.

The improprieties of the “Second Financial Reform” program are clear to see. But the TTV stock offering before us is even uglier. As everyone knows, the privatization of state-owned enterprises is motivated by considerations of efficiency rather than morality. But the withdrawal of political parties, the government, and the armed forces from the media is predicated upon the ideal of healthy political evolution, which does involve strong conceptions of right and wrong. Not only is the DPP incapable of implementing its original ideals concerning public ownership of the media, two of its cabinet members openly cajoled and threatened foreign media organizations, demanding that they sell their shares to the DPP-friendly Liberty Times. The GIO Chief went so far as to suggest that “As far as the ruling party is concerned, for the Liberty Times to assume control of TTV is the ideal choice.” Is this something that anyone who has the faintest conception of what constitutes news ought to say?

As we pointed out in yesterday’s editorial, government property and government franchises are public property, not the private property of the DPP, Chen Shui-bian, or Su Chen-chang. Executive Yuan officials, including the GIO chief, the minister of economic affairs, and the minister of finance, seem incapable of grasping the notion that their duty is to defend the rights of the public. The only thing they seem aware of, is how to toady up to their superiors. Seeing Japanese businessmen as easy marks, they resorted to naked coercion, attempting to intimidate them into selling their shares to designated buyers. Faced with financial group bullying, despite gross corporate mismanagement, all they dared to do was to go on the market and collect proxies. They didn’t dare mention the debt the financial groups incurred three years ago. This kind of administration, this kind of ruling party, so outwardly fierce but so inwardly faint-hearted, leaves us speechless. We would like to ask Premier Su just one question: Does nothing else concern you except the accusation that you attempted to “force the king to abdicate?”

Original Chinese below:

有沒有逼宮事小 知不知羞恥事大
中時社論
2007.03.27

最 近數日，行政院長蘇貞昌在二○○八路上正身陷重圍。初選辯論，蘇揆受游錫?與黨內深綠團體圍剿，怪他獨派色彩不 夠鮮明，又指責他在紅衫軍攻扁之際「逼宮」。為了過初選這一關，蘇揆對於逼宮之說非常地在意，透過各種管道拚命澄清。但是坦白說，有沒有逼宮只是民進黨茶 壺內的風暴，而蘇揆即使真有逼退貪腐領導人之言語，也未必是什麼人格上的瑕疵。相對而言，昨日富士電視台代表長谷川澄男所公布的蘇內閣閣員作為，才是真正 的羞恥。

日本富士電視台代表日前在台視前董事長賴國洲陪同下召開記者會，公布行政 院閣員介入台視釋股案之驚人內幕。長谷川 表示，一月十七日他受新聞局長鄭文燦之邀赴午宴，席中除鄭局長之外，還有經濟部長陳瑞隆、自由時報社長、董事長、副總編等多人。在席間，新聞局長鄭文燦提 到：「富士（股份）要賣給誰，是富士的自由，但一定要賣給今天在座的自由時報。」而後，經長陳瑞隆亦表示，他已經與其他持有台視股票的日本公司說明，也要 求他們賣給自由時報。在長谷川澄男記者會後，鄭文燦、陳瑞隆兩位閣員都沒有否認有類似談話，只是支吾其詞地做些閃躲，可見長谷川所言大致不虛。對於兩位閣 員被日本記者公然爆料指責，揭穿民進黨政府多位閣員不當介入私人股票買賣、引導台視釋股方向的作為，我們真的為蘇內閣感到慚愧。

七 年前民進黨在野時，批評國民黨最力的，就是該黨的「黨國資本主義」。但是民進黨執政後的表現，卻大有後來居上之 勢，只是形式與國民黨略為不同而已。早年國民黨政府接收大量的日本國營與私營企業，有些由國家經營，有些則私相授予國民黨而成為黨營事業。這些事業再經過 長時間的投資與轉投資，遂形成黨國不分的龐大體系。民進黨執政七年期間，雖未能由外部接收企業而予以分配，卻藉著社會要求國營事業民營化與媒體公共化的呼 聲，將一波波利益轉讓給與民進黨友好的財團，一樣也形成可觀的黨國資本裙帶圈。

從 三年前推動的二次金改，與當下正在進行的台視公司釋股案，國人已能清楚看到民進黨版的「黨國資本主義」藍圖。二 ○○六年彰化銀行被併入台新金控，不論交易條件細節如何，該交易一定是對台新吳家有利，他們才會願意投標。二○○四年政府踢走中華開發金控原有團隊陳敏 薰，再與持股不足六個月的辜家聯手無限制徵求委託書，更是平白無故地將千億資產的公司經營拱手讓予勤走官邸的財團。這些財團據報載其股票設值比例奇高，台 新與中信董監持股佔資產比重都低得可憐，故併吞彰銀與開發都只是「用別人錢」的財務操作，財團真正投入的成本微乎其微。因此，民進黨政府的二次金改，可以 說是極為廉價地將大公司經營權讓渡給友好財團。

二次金改私相授受之不當已如前述， 但是目前發生之台視釋股案則更為醜陋。如所週知，公營事業移轉民營只是基於效率 的考量，背後並沒有什麼道德正當性；但是黨政軍退出媒體卻是基於民主政治正常發展的理想，其政策背後確實是有極強的正當理念。現在，民進黨不但不能貫徹媒 體公共化的初衷，甚至由兩位內閣閣員出面，對國外媒體軟硬兼施，要求賣給與民進黨友好的自由時報。新聞局長甚至在席間表示：「對執政黨而言…由自由時報來 接收『掌控』台視會是最佳選擇」，這像是有新聞理念的人講的話嗎？

我們在日前社論 已經明白指出，所有的國家資產或經營權都是公產，不是民進黨、陳水扁或蘇貞昌的私產。我們的行政院 團隊（包括新聞局長、經濟部長、財政部長）不能秉持理念為人民爭取權益，卻只知對長官曲意配合。看日商狀似好欺，就脅迫就範，強行指定賣股對象；碰上財團 橫行霸道，雖然有一籮筐公司治理瑕疵，卻只敢到市場上收委託書，完全不敢提三年前的再造之恩。這樣一組行政團隊、這樣一個執政黨、這樣色厲內荏的表現，我 們真不知道要說什麼。我們只想請教蘇揆：除了逼宮危機之外，您心中還有沒有其他更重要的價值呢？

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 27, 2007

Comment: Among the many myths promulgated by democracies and other monopolistic states, is the myth that “public property” belongs to “The People.”

The reality of course is that there is no such thing as “The People.” There are only millions of sovereign and independent individuals, most of whom are strangers to each other, each of whom is understandably constrained by “rational ignorance.”

The predictable consequence of this reality is that “public property” invariably ends up as the private property of powerful officials and their wealthy cronies.


TVBS “News Nightclub” expose of DPP political patronage in the form of endless sweetheart deals: Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit System scandal, Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation scandal, China Airlines scandal, Electronic Toll Collection scandal, Mega Bank scandal

TVBS “News Nightclub” expose of DPP political patronage in the form of endless sweetheart deals: Waterland Financial Holdings scandal, Taiwan Development Bank scandal, Chung Hua Telecom scandal, Asia Pacific Broadband Telecom scandal, Taiwan Television Enterprise scandal

Anyone who expects the token safeguards incorporated into democracies and other monopolistic states to provide “checks and balances” on such officials within the nominally separate, but actually monolithic “branches of government,” is hopelessly naive.

The harsh reality is that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers, within the context of a monopolistic state, is a contradiction in terms.

No matter how hard one tries to divide a monopolistic state into “branches” the reality is that all such “branches” live off the same “tax revenues,” better known as protection money, extracted by force from “taxpayers,” better known as victims of extortion.

As long as a nation is ruled by a conventional monopolistic state rather than served by Private Defense Agencies (PDAs), any ostensibly “separate and independent branches” of government will always perceive themselves as inseparable parts of the same government, the one government, the only government.

And the outrages described in the following China Times editorial will play themselves out endlessly like a broken record.

See:
Economic Selections, not Democratic Elections
The Myth of Checks and Balances

Forcing the King to abdicate is Nothing. Having No Sense of Shame is Everything
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 27, 2007

Recently Premier Su Tseng-chang was ambushed on the road to the 2008 presidency. During the primary debates, Premier Su found himself surrounded and under attack by Yu Hsi-kuen and Deep Green organizations, who accused him of not being sufficiently Green, i.e., not being militantly pro-independence. They also accused him of “forcing the king to abdicate” when Chen Shui-bian was under attack by Red Shirt Army protesters. In order to clear the primary hurdles, Premier Su felt compelled to defend himself against accusations that he was pressuring Chen to step down, and attempted to clear himself through various channels. But frankly speaking, whether he pressured Chen to step down is merely a tempest in a teacup, a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) family affair. And if Premier Su used language that pressured a corrupt leader to step down, so what? That hardly constitutes a character defect. By contrast, the conduct of Su cabinet officials, publicly revealed yesterday by Fuji television network representative Sumio Hasegawa, truly was something to be ashamed of.

Yesterday, during a press conference convened by former Taiwan Television Enterprise Ltd (TTV) Chairman Lai Kuo-chou, the Fuji television network representative revealed an astonishing piece of inside information regarding the role of Executive Yuan cabinet members during the public auction of TTV shares. Hasegawa indicated that on January 17, he received a luncheon invitation from Government Information Office (GIO) Chief Cheng Wen-tsang. Present at the luncheon, in addition to Chief Cheng, were Minister of Economic Affairs Steven Chen, and the executive editor, chairman of the board, and deputy editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times Group. During the session, GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang declared that “Fuji is free to sell its shares to anyone it wishes, but it must sell its shares to the Liberty Times, which is in attendance today.” After which he indicated through Steve Chen that he had already instructed the other Japanese companies to sell their shares to the Liberty Times. Following Sumio Hasegawa’s press conference, neither of the two cabinet members, Cheng Wen-tsang or Steve Chen, denied having such conversations. They merely muttered terse evasions. Clearly what Hasegawa said was true. Shame on the Su cabinet and the ruling DPP government, whose attempt to influence the sale of TTV shares has been publicly exposed by Japanese reporters.

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: “Fuji is free to sell its shares to anyone it wishes … ”

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: ” … but it must sell its shares to the Liberty Times. The right to the shares must be sold to a media organization we can trust. ”

GIO Chief Cheng Wen-tsang: “For the Liberty Times to control TTV is the best choice.”

Seven years ago, when the DPP was an opposition party, it blasted the Kuomintang (KMT) for “Party-State Capitalism.” But the behavior of the DPP since it assumed office has made the KMT look like a piker. The only difference between it and the KMT is its outer trappings. During its early years the KMT government took over a large number of Japanese state-owned enterprises and private enterprises. Some were turned over to the national government to become state-owned enterprises. Others were turned over to the KMT to become party-owned enterprises. Over time, these enterprises, through long-term investments and the transfer of capital, yielded a ponderous system in which no distinction was made between the party and the state. The DPP has been in power for seven years. Although it has not been able to turn these enterprises over to outsiders, it has been able to cite demands for the privatization of state-owned enterprises and calls for the public ownership of the media as pretexts to grant financial groups close to the DPP wave upon wave of benefits, resulting in an impressive Party-State Capitalist system of its own.

Beginning with the Orwellian-named “Second Financial Reform” program three years ago, which had an immediate impact on the ongoing public offering of TTV shares, the DPP blueprint for its own version of “Party-State Capitalism” has been clear for all to see. In 2006, the Chang Hua Bank was acquired by Taishin Financial Holdings. No matter what the details were, the transaction was certainly advantageous to the Wu family, otherwise they would not have submitted a bid. In 2004 the government kicked out former China Development Financial Holding Corporation (CDFH) Chairperson Chen Min-hsun. Then, working hand in glove with the Ku family, which owned shares for less than six months, allowed the latter to acquire an unlimited number of proxies, and allowed control of a company worth hundreds of billions in New Taiwan Dollars to be delivered into the hands of financial groups with close ties to the First Family. The shares of these financial groups, according to reports, are overvalued. The board of directors of Taishin and China Trust hold a pitifully small number of shares. Their hostile takeovers of Chang Hua Bank and CDFH were accomplished by means of financial subterfuge, using “other peoples’ money.” The actual investment of the financial groups was minuscule. Therefore, the DPP government’s “Second Financial Reform” is in truth nothing more than an expedient means of transferring control of major corporations to financial groups friendly to the ruling regime.

The improprieties of the “Second Financial Reform” program are clear to see. But the TTV stock offering before us is even uglier. As everyone knows, the privatization of state-owned enterprises is motivated by considerations of efficiency rather than morality. But the withdrawal of political parties, the government, and the armed forces from the media is predicated upon the ideal of healthy political evolution, which does involve strong conceptions of right and wrong. Not only is the DPP incapable of implementing its original ideals concerning public ownership of the media, two of its cabinet members openly cajoled and threatened foreign media organizations, demanding that they sell their shares to the DPP-friendly Liberty Times. The GIO Chief went so far as to suggest that “As far as the ruling party is concerned, for the Liberty Times to assume control of TTV is the ideal choice.” Is this something that anyone who has the faintest conception of what constitutes news ought to say?

As we pointed out in yesterday’s editorial, government property and government franchises are public property, not the private property of the DPP, Chen Shui-bian, or Su Chen-chang. Executive Yuan officials, including the GIO chief, the minister of economic affairs, and the minister of finance, seem incapable of grasping the notion that their duty is to defend the rights of the public. The only thing they seem aware of, is how to toady up to their superiors. Seeing Japanese businessmen as easy marks, they resorted to naked coercion, attempting to intimidate them into selling their shares to designated buyers. Faced with financial group bullying, despite gross corporate mismanagement, all they dared to do was to go on the market and collect proxies. They didn’t dare mention the debt the financial groups incurred three years ago. This kind of administration, this kind of ruling party, so outwardly fierce but so inwardly faint-hearted, leaves us speechless. We would like to ask Premier Su just one question: Does nothing else concern you except the accusation that you attempted to “force the king to abdicate?”

Original Chinese below:

有沒有逼宮事小 知不知羞恥事大
中時社論
2007.03.27

最 近數日，行政院長蘇貞昌在二○○八路上正身陷重圍。初選辯論，蘇揆受游錫?與黨內深綠團體圍剿，怪他獨派色彩不 夠鮮明，又指責他在紅衫軍攻扁之際「逼宮」。為了過初選這一關，蘇揆對於逼宮之說非常地在意，透過各種管道拚命澄清。但是坦白說，有沒有逼宮只是民進黨茶 壺內的風暴，而蘇揆即使真有逼退貪腐領導人之言語，也未必是什麼人格上的瑕疵。相對而言，昨日富士電視台代表長谷川澄男所公布的蘇內閣閣員作為，才是真正 的羞恥。

日本富士電視台代表日前在台視前董事長賴國洲陪同下召開記者會，公布行政 院閣員介入台視釋股案之驚人內幕。長谷川 表示，一月十七日他受新聞局長鄭文燦之邀赴午宴，席中除鄭局長之外，還有經濟部長陳瑞隆、自由時報社長、董事長、副總編等多人。在席間，新聞局長鄭文燦提 到：「富士（股份）要賣給誰，是富士的自由，但一定要賣給今天在座的自由時報。」而後，經長陳瑞隆亦表示，他已經與其他持有台視股票的日本公司說明，也要 求他們賣給自由時報。在長谷川澄男記者會後，鄭文燦、陳瑞隆兩位閣員都沒有否認有類似談話，只是支吾其詞地做些閃躲，可見長谷川所言大致不虛。對於兩位閣 員被日本記者公然爆料指責，揭穿民進黨政府多位閣員不當介入私人股票買賣、引導台視釋股方向的作為，我們真的為蘇內閣感到慚愧。

七 年前民進黨在野時，批評國民黨最力的，就是該黨的「黨國資本主義」。但是民進黨執政後的表現，卻大有後來居上之 勢，只是形式與國民黨略為不同而已。早年國民黨政府接收大量的日本國營與私營企業，有些由國家經營，有些則私相授予國民黨而成為黨營事業。這些事業再經過 長時間的投資與轉投資，遂形成黨國不分的龐大體系。民進黨執政七年期間，雖未能由外部接收企業而予以分配，卻藉著社會要求國營事業民營化與媒體公共化的呼 聲，將一波波利益轉讓給與民進黨友好的財團，一樣也形成可觀的黨國資本裙帶圈。

從 三年前推動的二次金改，與當下正在進行的台視公司釋股案，國人已能清楚看到民進黨版的「黨國資本主義」藍圖。二 ○○六年彰化銀行被併入台新金控，不論交易條件細節如何，該交易一定是對台新吳家有利，他們才會願意投標。二○○四年政府踢走中華開發金控原有團隊陳敏 薰，再與持股不足六個月的辜家聯手無限制徵求委託書，更是平白無故地將千億資產的公司經營拱手讓予勤走官邸的財團。這些財團據報載其股票設值比例奇高，台 新與中信董監持股佔資產比重都低得可憐，故併吞彰銀與開發都只是「用別人錢」的財務操作，財團真正投入的成本微乎其微。因此，民進黨政府的二次金改，可以 說是極為廉價地將大公司經營權讓渡給友好財團。

二次金改私相授受之不當已如前述， 但是目前發生之台視釋股案則更為醜陋。如所週知，公營事業移轉民營只是基於效率 的考量，背後並沒有什麼道德正當性；但是黨政軍退出媒體卻是基於民主政治正常發展的理想，其政策背後確實是有極強的正當理念。現在，民進黨不但不能貫徹媒 體公共化的初衷，甚至由兩位內閣閣員出面，對國外媒體軟硬兼施，要求賣給與民進黨友好的自由時報。新聞局長甚至在席間表示：「對執政黨而言…由自由時報來 接收『掌控』台視會是最佳選擇」，這像是有新聞理念的人講的話嗎？

我們在日前社論 已經明白指出，所有的國家資產或經營權都是公產，不是民進黨、陳水扁或蘇貞昌的私產。我們的行政院 團隊（包括新聞局長、經濟部長、財政部長）不能秉持理念為人民爭取權益，卻只知對長官曲意配合。看日商狀似好欺，就脅迫就範，強行指定賣股對象；碰上財團 橫行霸道，雖然有一籮筐公司治理瑕疵，卻只敢到市場上收委託書，完全不敢提三年前的再造之恩。這樣一組行政團隊、這樣一個執政黨、這樣色厲內荏的表現，我 們真不知道要說什麼。我們只想請教蘇揆：除了逼宮危機之外，您心中還有沒有其他更重要的價值呢？