The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2004

TV Celebrity Pai Ping-ping, a former Green Camp supporter, denounces Chen Shui-bian’s Mass Pardon

Chen Shui-bian wants to declare a nationwide pardon for convicted criminals. Public response has been anxiety and discontent. The president can pardon convicted criminals, but can the public pardon rising crime?

Let’s put aside political considerations for the moment and look at the issue purely from the perspective of public safety. Such a large scale pardon, involving 20,000 sentence reductions and 7000 immediate releases, undermines judicial impartiality, police morale, and social order. During his seven years in power, Chen Shui-bian has failed to ensure public safety and social harmony, yet he has the audacity to cavalierly issue mass pardons before his term of office expires. This is a gross abuse of presidential power.

In recent years major felonies and white collar crimes have increased dramatically, even as the legal dragnet has developed gaping holes. One look at the crime statistics tells the entire story. The types of crimes committed have also changed: First, crimes of impulse such as opportunistic robberies, kidnappings and rapes, have increased. This has made crime prevention more difficult and increased public anxiety. Secondly, a variety of misdemeanors have proliferated, including brazen telephone fraud, the theft of iron gates and manhole covers for scrap value, and even the theft of melons from farming communities and the theft of fish from fishing villages. Such crimes are never seriously investigated. They are crimes police usually ignore, but which cause people great suffering. Yet the object of this round of pardons is the perpetrators of these misdemeanors.

If the ship of state were on an even keel, commuting sentences to rehabilitate convicts and promote social harmony would not be an extreme measure. But on today’s Taiwan, economic recession encourages the weak-willed to resort to theft or robbery, even as political confrontation leaves the public in a moral vacuum. At a time when the government has failed to maintain public safety, or rehabilitate chronic offenders, or prevent more people from taking the path toward crime, does it make sense to suddenly issue a wholesale pardon, and release large numbers of criminals back onto the streets? Is the government not concerned about adding fuel to the fire?

Consider several cases which occurred in the past week: A university co-ed in Hualien was attacked and raped at night on her way home. Fortunately villagers and fellow students were vigilant, and the perpetrator was captured. A few days ago, a man pushed his ex-wife over a cliff. If not for the persistence of the woman’s family members, who looked in every direction and followed up every lead, the truth would never have come to light. Additional cases include the theft of two senior high school students’ motor scooters and the theft of one university co-ed’s purse. These cases were solved only when the victims themselves obtained security camera footage, then captured the perpetrators on their own initiative. When more and more people must depend on themselves to see justice done, one realizes the “Thin Blue Line” has long since vanished, and the public has long since ceased to expect anything from public authorities.

After the perpetrator of the attack on the Hualian university co-ed was captured, he confessed to six previous offenses; yet no record of of his crimes could be found in police archives. Whether the victims were intimidated into remaining silent, or the police dropped the cases down the memory hole, “public safety” on Taiwan is an empty fiction. Prime Minister Su’s boast that “Public safety has taken a turn for the better” is a bare-faced lie. Yet Chen Shui-bian wants to use presidential pardons to demonstrate his “humanitarianism” toward felons? What is he doing to law-abiding citizens, except pouring salt in their wounds?

It is true that commuting sentences is the privilege of a head of state. But for Chen Shui-bian to do so for the wrong motives at the wrong time, merely reveals his callous indifference to the public’s state of mind. Consider the extent to which the burden of coping with declining public safety on Taiwan has been shifted onto the shoulders of the private sector. Neighborhoods, high rise buildings, and businesses have all arrived at a point where not hiring private security guards means not having any security whatsoever. Even farming communities and university campuses have resorted to organizing “Self-Defense Brigades” to guard against criminal intrusions. Ordinary citizens have been compelled to invest more and more of their limited resources into providing their own security. The government, meanwhile, is more and more lackadaisical in its fight against crime. Does the ruling regime feel no shame? For years the ruling party has been at a complete loss in dealing with telephone fraud. Yet it has suddenly demanded that the newly established National Communications Commission (NCC) “assume responsibility.” This kind of attitude reveals the Chen administration’s buck passing attitude.

If Chen Shui-bian has the slightest empathy for public opinion, he should devote himself to improving the economy and reducing political provocations and ideological struggles. If Taiwan’s economy could be improved, if poverty induced burglary and larceny could be reduced, that would demonstrate an ability to govern. The president has abandoned his key responsibilities. Ignoring what he must do, he is hoping to use “humanitarianism” as a pretext for an extravagant pardon of convicted felons, for purely political motives. This not only puts the cart before the horse, it is naked grandstanding and mass deception. How can such a fraudulent commutation of sentences, demonstrating sheer contempt for judicial independence, possibly be justified?

Having occupied the presidency for seven years, Chen Shui-bian has tasted all the power a head of state can ever hope to. He has abused that power and milked it for all it is worth. Confronted with a government in decay and a society in chaos, he chooses to engage in an ostentatious commutation of sentences. Does he really have public safety in mind, when he doesn’t have the people in his heart? The president can pardon criminals, but can the people pardon escalating crime?

Original Chinese below:

總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.04.27 02:27 am

陳水扁欲實施全國性減刑，多數民眾的反應是不安和不平。請問：總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？

撇 開此舉的政治算計不談，從治安的角度看，幅度如此之大的減刑，兩萬人刑期縮減，七千受刑人可隨即釋放出獄，不僅對司法正義構成削損，對執法人員構成打擊， 對社會治安亦構成潛在威脅。陳水扁執政七年，無能把台灣建設成一個較安全、和諧的社會，卻在即將任滿前大肆減刑，這真是對總統特權的大揮霍。

近 幾年台灣重大刑事及經濟犯罪愈見嚴重，且法網愈形疏漏，僅看通緝犯排行榜，即一目了然。同時，犯罪型態也出現變化：一是「即興犯案」的比率大為提高，諸如 隨機搶劫超商，或隨機擄人強暴；這不僅大大增加了防範難度，也升高了民眾的恐懼。二是「微罪型」的犯罪層出不窮，包括囂張的電話詐騙，從未被認真偵辦的鐵 門、鐵蓋竊案，乃至農村漁村的偷瓜、偷魚賊。這大抵是警力最怠忽的一隅，卻也是全民受害、受擾最深的一環，但此次減刑的對象卻以這些微罪、輕罪犯為主。

如 果國家承平，藉減刑協助受刑人重獲新生，增進社會和諧，尚不失為積極之計。但以台灣目前的狀況，經濟萎縮逼使意志弱者走上偷搶，政治對峙導致人民精神缺乏 追求；此時，不檢討政府對治安的維護能力，不問國家對罪犯的矯正是否周全，不設法預防更多人民步入監獄，卻驟然實施大減刑，把大批人犯放出來，難道不怕助 長亂世的動盪？

且看最近一周發生的幾個案例：花蓮女大學生在夜歸途中遭襲擊強暴， 幸虧村民和同學機警，方才擒獲歹徒。此前數日，狠心男子將前妻推落山谷，若非女方家人鍥而不捨，自行四處查訪、過濾線索，奇冤如何大白？此外，包括兩樁高 中生機車失竊、女大學生皮包被偷，都是受害人自行調閱錄影帶，自力擒賊。當社會上越來越多人須靠自力救濟來討回公道，不啻意味治安防線已瀕於崩毀，人們對 公權力也已失去了寄望。

再看，襲擊花蓮女生的歹徒就擒後，承認自己曾犯下六案；然 而在警方的資料中，卻查不到紀錄。無論受害者是被迫噤聲或遭警方吃案，台灣的治安「黑洞」多麼幽深，已不言可喻。蘇揆誇稱「治安好轉」，分明是違心之論； 而陳水扁要用減刑向罪犯體現「人道」，這無異是選擇對善良百姓雪上加霜！

的確，減 刑是元首的特權，但陳水扁此時實施，不僅在錯誤的時機提出了錯誤的藉口，他也暴露自己對人民的心情毫無感應。試想，這幾年來台灣治安惡化的重擔，有極高的 比率已轉由民間自行承受。包括社區、大樓乃至企業，皆到了不僱用保全人員不足以保安的地步；連農村及大學校園也組織「自衛隊」，來防止歹徒入侵。人民投注 可觀的資源來維護自身安全，政府在治安陣線的心力反而愈形鬆散，執政者不愧對手中公權力嗎？就如執政黨幾年來對氾濫的電話詐騙束手無策，最近突然要求 NCC「負起責任」。這種作風，在在反映了扁政府「一推二託三狡賴」的本質！

陳水 扁如果對民意稍有感應，他應該致力拚經濟，減少政治的挑撥和鬥爭；若台灣經濟能有起色，「飢寒起盜心」式的偷竊詐欺自可減少，這才是治國之本。現在，總統 拋棄核心的施政責任不顧，卻欲假藉「人道」之名大縱放刑事罪犯，目的無非是為了選舉「割喉」的權謀算計，這不僅本末倒置，更是赤裸裸的欺世盜名。更別說， 施行減刑的手，還是全力侮蔑司法的貪瀆正犯；如此「名不正、言不順」的減刑，如何自圓其說？

當了七年總統，所有元首的權力滋味，作威作福，予取予求，陳水扁已品嘗俱足。面對國政頹唐，社會紛亂，即在臨去之際，他仍無度揮霍其減刑特權。他的心中既已沒有人民，怎麼會有治安？

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2004

TV Celebrity Pai Ping-ping, a former Green Camp supporter, denounces Chen Shui-bian’s Mass Pardon

Chen Shui-bian wants to declare a nationwide pardon for convicted criminals. Public response has been anxiety and discontent. The president can pardon convicted criminals, but can the public pardon rising crime?

Let’s put aside political considerations for the moment and look at the issue purely from the perspective of public safety. Such a large scale pardon, involving 20,000 sentence reductions and 7000 immediate releases, undermines judicial impartiality, police morale, and social order. During his seven years in power, Chen Shui-bian has failed to ensure public safety and social harmony, yet he has the audacity to cavalierly issue mass pardons before his term of office expires. This is a gross abuse of presidential power.

In recent years major felonies and white collar crimes have increased dramatically, even as the legal dragnet has developed gaping holes. One look at the crime statistics tells the entire story. The types of crimes committed have also changed: First, crimes of impulse such as opportunistic robberies, kidnappings and rapes, have increased. This has made crime prevention more difficult and increased public anxiety. Secondly, a variety of misdemeanors have proliferated, including brazen telephone fraud, the theft of iron gates and manhole covers for scrap value, and even the theft of melons from farming communities and the theft of fish from fishing villages. Such crimes are never seriously investigated. They are crimes police usually ignore, but which cause people great suffering. Yet the object of this round of pardons is the perpetrators of these misdemeanors.

If the ship of state were on an even keel, commuting sentences to rehabilitate convicts and promote social harmony would not be an extreme measure. But on today’s Taiwan, economic recession encourages the weak-willed to resort to theft or robbery, even as political confrontation leaves the public in a moral vacuum. At a time when the government has failed to maintain public safety, or rehabilitate chronic offenders, or prevent more people from taking the path toward crime, does it make sense to suddenly issue a wholesale pardon, and release large numbers of criminals back onto the streets? Is the government not concerned about adding fuel to the fire?

Consider several cases which occurred in the past week: A university co-ed in Hualien was attacked and raped at night on her way home. Fortunately villagers and fellow students were vigilant, and the perpetrator was captured. A few days ago, a man pushed his ex-wife over a cliff. If not for the persistence of the woman’s family members, who looked in every direction and followed up every lead, the truth would never have come to light. Additional cases include the theft of two senior high school students’ motor scooters and the theft of one university co-ed’s purse. These cases were solved only when the victims themselves obtained security camera footage, then captured the perpetrators on their own initiative. When more and more people must depend on themselves to see justice done, one realizes the “Thin Blue Line” has long since vanished, and the public has long since ceased to expect anything from public authorities.

After the perpetrator of the attack on the Hualian university co-ed was captured, he confessed to six previous offenses; yet no record of of his crimes could be found in police archives. Whether the victims were intimidated into remaining silent, or the police dropped the cases down the memory hole, “public safety” on Taiwan is an empty fiction. Prime Minister Su’s boast that “Public safety has taken a turn for the better” is a bare-faced lie. Yet Chen Shui-bian wants to use presidential pardons to demonstrate his “humanitarianism” toward felons? What is he doing to law-abiding citizens, except pouring salt in their wounds?

It is true that commuting sentences is the privilege of a head of state. But for Chen Shui-bian to do so for the wrong motives at the wrong time, merely reveals his callous indifference to the public’s state of mind. Consider the extent to which the burden of coping with declining public safety on Taiwan has been shifted onto the shoulders of the private sector. Neighborhoods, high rise buildings, and businesses have all arrived at a point where not hiring private security guards means not having any security whatsoever. Even farming communities and university campuses have resorted to organizing “Self-Defense Brigades” to guard against criminal intrusions. Ordinary citizens have been compelled to invest more and more of their limited resources into providing their own security. The government, meanwhile, is more and more lackadaisical in its fight against crime. Does the ruling regime feel no shame? For years the ruling party has been at a complete loss in dealing with telephone fraud. Yet it has suddenly demanded that the newly established National Communications Commission (NCC) “assume responsibility.” This kind of attitude reveals the Chen administration’s buck passing attitude.

If Chen Shui-bian has the slightest empathy for public opinion, he should devote himself to improving the economy and reducing political provocations and ideological struggles. If Taiwan’s economy could be improved, if poverty induced burglary and larceny could be reduced, that would demonstrate an ability to govern. The president has abandoned his key responsibilities. Ignoring what he must do, he is hoping to use “humanitarianism” as a pretext for an extravagant pardon of convicted felons, for purely political motives. This not only puts the cart before the horse, it is naked grandstanding and mass deception. How can such a fraudulent commutation of sentences, demonstrating sheer contempt for judicial independence, possibly be justified?

Having occupied the presidency for seven years, Chen Shui-bian has tasted all the power a head of state can ever hope to. He has abused that power and milked it for all it is worth. Confronted with a government in decay and a society in chaos, he chooses to engage in an ostentatious commutation of sentences. Does he really have public safety in mind, when he doesn’t have the people in his heart? The president can pardon criminals, but can the people pardon escalating crime?

Original Chinese below:

總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.04.27 02:27 am

陳水扁欲實施全國性減刑，多數民眾的反應是不安和不平。請問：總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？

撇 開此舉的政治算計不談，從治安的角度看，幅度如此之大的減刑，兩萬人刑期縮減，七千受刑人可隨即釋放出獄，不僅對司法正義構成削損，對執法人員構成打擊， 對社會治安亦構成潛在威脅。陳水扁執政七年，無能把台灣建設成一個較安全、和諧的社會，卻在即將任滿前大肆減刑，這真是對總統特權的大揮霍。

近 幾年台灣重大刑事及經濟犯罪愈見嚴重，且法網愈形疏漏，僅看通緝犯排行榜，即一目了然。同時，犯罪型態也出現變化：一是「即興犯案」的比率大為提高，諸如 隨機搶劫超商，或隨機擄人強暴；這不僅大大增加了防範難度，也升高了民眾的恐懼。二是「微罪型」的犯罪層出不窮，包括囂張的電話詐騙，從未被認真偵辦的鐵 門、鐵蓋竊案，乃至農村漁村的偷瓜、偷魚賊。這大抵是警力最怠忽的一隅，卻也是全民受害、受擾最深的一環，但此次減刑的對象卻以這些微罪、輕罪犯為主。

如 果國家承平，藉減刑協助受刑人重獲新生，增進社會和諧，尚不失為積極之計。但以台灣目前的狀況，經濟萎縮逼使意志弱者走上偷搶，政治對峙導致人民精神缺乏 追求；此時，不檢討政府對治安的維護能力，不問國家對罪犯的矯正是否周全，不設法預防更多人民步入監獄，卻驟然實施大減刑，把大批人犯放出來，難道不怕助 長亂世的動盪？

且看最近一周發生的幾個案例：花蓮女大學生在夜歸途中遭襲擊強暴， 幸虧村民和同學機警，方才擒獲歹徒。此前數日，狠心男子將前妻推落山谷，若非女方家人鍥而不捨，自行四處查訪、過濾線索，奇冤如何大白？此外，包括兩樁高 中生機車失竊、女大學生皮包被偷，都是受害人自行調閱錄影帶，自力擒賊。當社會上越來越多人須靠自力救濟來討回公道，不啻意味治安防線已瀕於崩毀，人們對 公權力也已失去了寄望。

再看，襲擊花蓮女生的歹徒就擒後，承認自己曾犯下六案；然 而在警方的資料中，卻查不到紀錄。無論受害者是被迫噤聲或遭警方吃案，台灣的治安「黑洞」多麼幽深，已不言可喻。蘇揆誇稱「治安好轉」，分明是違心之論； 而陳水扁要用減刑向罪犯體現「人道」，這無異是選擇對善良百姓雪上加霜！

的確，減 刑是元首的特權，但陳水扁此時實施，不僅在錯誤的時機提出了錯誤的藉口，他也暴露自己對人民的心情毫無感應。試想，這幾年來台灣治安惡化的重擔，有極高的 比率已轉由民間自行承受。包括社區、大樓乃至企業，皆到了不僱用保全人員不足以保安的地步；連農村及大學校園也組織「自衛隊」，來防止歹徒入侵。人民投注 可觀的資源來維護自身安全，政府在治安陣線的心力反而愈形鬆散，執政者不愧對手中公權力嗎？就如執政黨幾年來對氾濫的電話詐騙束手無策，最近突然要求 NCC「負起責任」。這種作風，在在反映了扁政府「一推二託三狡賴」的本質！

陳水 扁如果對民意稍有感應，他應該致力拚經濟，減少政治的挑撥和鬥爭；若台灣經濟能有起色，「飢寒起盜心」式的偷竊詐欺自可減少，這才是治國之本。現在，總統 拋棄核心的施政責任不顧，卻欲假藉「人道」之名大縱放刑事罪犯，目的無非是為了選舉「割喉」的權謀算計，這不僅本末倒置，更是赤裸裸的欺世盜名。更別說， 施行減刑的手，還是全力侮蔑司法的貪瀆正犯；如此「名不正、言不順」的減刑，如何自圓其說？

當了七年總統，所有元首的權力滋味，作威作福，予取予求，陳水扁已品嘗俱足。面對國政頹唐，社會紛亂，即在臨去之際，他仍無度揮霍其減刑特權。他的心中既已沒有人民，怎麼會有治安？

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2004

TV Celebrity Pai Ping-ping, a former Green Camp supporter, denounces Chen Shui-bian’s Mass Pardon

Chen Shui-bian wants to declare a nationwide pardon for convicted criminals. Public response has been anxiety and discontent. The president can pardon convicted criminals, but can the public pardon rising crime?

Let’s put aside political considerations for the moment and look at the issue purely from the perspective of public safety. Such a large scale pardon, involving 20,000 sentence reductions and 7000 immediate releases, undermines judicial impartiality, police morale, and social order. During his seven years in power, Chen Shui-bian has failed to ensure public safety and social harmony, yet he has the audacity to cavalierly issue mass pardons before his term of office expires. This is a gross abuse of presidential power.

In recent years major felonies and white collar crimes have increased dramatically, even as the legal dragnet has developed gaping holes. One look at the crime statistics tells the entire story. The types of crimes committed have also changed: First, crimes of impulse such as opportunistic robberies, kidnappings and rapes, have increased. This has made crime prevention more difficult and increased public anxiety. Secondly, a variety of misdemeanors have proliferated, including brazen telephone fraud, the theft of iron gates and manhole covers for scrap value, and even the theft of melons from farming communities and the theft of fish from fishing villages. Such crimes are never seriously investigated. They are crimes police usually ignore, but which cause people great suffering. Yet the object of this round of pardons is the perpetrators of these misdemeanors.

If the ship of state were on an even keel, commuting sentences to rehabilitate convicts and promote social harmony would not be an extreme measure. But on today’s Taiwan, economic recession encourages the weak-willed to resort to theft or robbery, even as political confrontation leaves the public in a moral vacuum. At a time when the government has failed to maintain public safety, or rehabilitate chronic offenders, or prevent more people from taking the path toward crime, does it make sense to suddenly issue a wholesale pardon, and release large numbers of criminals back onto the streets? Is the government not concerned about adding fuel to the fire?

Consider several cases which occurred in the past week: A university co-ed in Hualien was attacked and raped at night on her way home. Fortunately villagers and fellow students were vigilant, and the perpetrator was captured. A few days ago, a man pushed his ex-wife over a cliff. If not for the persistence of the woman’s family members, who looked in every direction and followed up every lead, the truth would never have come to light. Additional cases include the theft of two senior high school students’ motor scooters and the theft of one university co-ed’s purse. These cases were solved only when the victims themselves obtained security camera footage, then captured the perpetrators on their own initiative. When more and more people must depend on themselves to see justice done, one realizes the “Thin Blue Line” has long since vanished, and the public has long since ceased to expect anything from public authorities.

After the perpetrator of the attack on the Hualian university co-ed was captured, he confessed to six previous offenses; yet no record of of his crimes could be found in police archives. Whether the victims were intimidated into remaining silent, or the police dropped the cases down the memory hole, “public safety” on Taiwan is an empty fiction. Prime Minister Su’s boast that “Public safety has taken a turn for the better” is a bare-faced lie. Yet Chen Shui-bian wants to use presidential pardons to demonstrate his “humanitarianism” toward felons? What is he doing to law-abiding citizens, except pouring salt in their wounds?

It is true that commuting sentences is the privilege of a head of state. But for Chen Shui-bian to do so for the wrong motives at the wrong time, merely reveals his callous indifference to the public’s state of mind. Consider the extent to which the burden of coping with declining public safety on Taiwan has been shifted onto the shoulders of the private sector. Neighborhoods, high rise buildings, and businesses have all arrived at a point where not hiring private security guards means not having any security whatsoever. Even farming communities and university campuses have resorted to organizing “Self-Defense Brigades” to guard against criminal intrusions. Ordinary citizens have been compelled to invest more and more of their limited resources into providing their own security. The government, meanwhile, is more and more lackadaisical in its fight against crime. Does the ruling regime feel no shame? For years the ruling party has been at a complete loss in dealing with telephone fraud. Yet it has suddenly demanded that the newly established National Communications Commission (NCC) “assume responsibility.” This kind of attitude reveals the Chen administration’s buck passing attitude.

If Chen Shui-bian has the slightest empathy for public opinion, he should devote himself to improving the economy and reducing political provocations and ideological struggles. If Taiwan’s economy could be improved, if poverty induced burglary and larceny could be reduced, that would demonstrate an ability to govern. The president has abandoned his key responsibilities. Ignoring what he must do, he is hoping to use “humanitarianism” as a pretext for an extravagant pardon of convicted felons, for purely political motives. This not only puts the cart before the horse, it is naked grandstanding and mass deception. How can such a fraudulent commutation of sentences, demonstrating sheer contempt for judicial independence, possibly be justified?

Having occupied the presidency for seven years, Chen Shui-bian has tasted all the power a head of state can ever hope to. He has abused that power and milked it for all it is worth. Confronted with a government in decay and a society in chaos, he chooses to engage in an ostentatious commutation of sentences. Does he really have public safety in mind, when he doesn’t have the people in his heart? The president can pardon criminals, but can the people pardon escalating crime?

Original Chinese below:

總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.04.27 02:27 am

陳水扁欲實施全國性減刑，多數民眾的反應是不安和不平。請問：總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？

撇 開此舉的政治算計不談，從治安的角度看，幅度如此之大的減刑，兩萬人刑期縮減，七千受刑人可隨即釋放出獄，不僅對司法正義構成削損，對執法人員構成打擊， 對社會治安亦構成潛在威脅。陳水扁執政七年，無能把台灣建設成一個較安全、和諧的社會，卻在即將任滿前大肆減刑，這真是對總統特權的大揮霍。

近 幾年台灣重大刑事及經濟犯罪愈見嚴重，且法網愈形疏漏，僅看通緝犯排行榜，即一目了然。同時，犯罪型態也出現變化：一是「即興犯案」的比率大為提高，諸如 隨機搶劫超商，或隨機擄人強暴；這不僅大大增加了防範難度，也升高了民眾的恐懼。二是「微罪型」的犯罪層出不窮，包括囂張的電話詐騙，從未被認真偵辦的鐵 門、鐵蓋竊案，乃至農村漁村的偷瓜、偷魚賊。這大抵是警力最怠忽的一隅，卻也是全民受害、受擾最深的一環，但此次減刑的對象卻以這些微罪、輕罪犯為主。

如 果國家承平，藉減刑協助受刑人重獲新生，增進社會和諧，尚不失為積極之計。但以台灣目前的狀況，經濟萎縮逼使意志弱者走上偷搶，政治對峙導致人民精神缺乏 追求；此時，不檢討政府對治安的維護能力，不問國家對罪犯的矯正是否周全，不設法預防更多人民步入監獄，卻驟然實施大減刑，把大批人犯放出來，難道不怕助 長亂世的動盪？

且看最近一周發生的幾個案例：花蓮女大學生在夜歸途中遭襲擊強暴， 幸虧村民和同學機警，方才擒獲歹徒。此前數日，狠心男子將前妻推落山谷，若非女方家人鍥而不捨，自行四處查訪、過濾線索，奇冤如何大白？此外，包括兩樁高 中生機車失竊、女大學生皮包被偷，都是受害人自行調閱錄影帶，自力擒賊。當社會上越來越多人須靠自力救濟來討回公道，不啻意味治安防線已瀕於崩毀，人們對 公權力也已失去了寄望。

再看，襲擊花蓮女生的歹徒就擒後，承認自己曾犯下六案；然 而在警方的資料中，卻查不到紀錄。無論受害者是被迫噤聲或遭警方吃案，台灣的治安「黑洞」多麼幽深，已不言可喻。蘇揆誇稱「治安好轉」，分明是違心之論； 而陳水扁要用減刑向罪犯體現「人道」，這無異是選擇對善良百姓雪上加霜！

的確，減 刑是元首的特權，但陳水扁此時實施，不僅在錯誤的時機提出了錯誤的藉口，他也暴露自己對人民的心情毫無感應。試想，這幾年來台灣治安惡化的重擔，有極高的 比率已轉由民間自行承受。包括社區、大樓乃至企業，皆到了不僱用保全人員不足以保安的地步；連農村及大學校園也組織「自衛隊」，來防止歹徒入侵。人民投注 可觀的資源來維護自身安全，政府在治安陣線的心力反而愈形鬆散，執政者不愧對手中公權力嗎？就如執政黨幾年來對氾濫的電話詐騙束手無策，最近突然要求 NCC「負起責任」。這種作風，在在反映了扁政府「一推二託三狡賴」的本質！

陳水 扁如果對民意稍有感應，他應該致力拚經濟，減少政治的挑撥和鬥爭；若台灣經濟能有起色，「飢寒起盜心」式的偷竊詐欺自可減少，這才是治國之本。現在，總統 拋棄核心的施政責任不顧，卻欲假藉「人道」之名大縱放刑事罪犯，目的無非是為了選舉「割喉」的權謀算計，這不僅本末倒置，更是赤裸裸的欺世盜名。更別說， 施行減刑的手，還是全力侮蔑司法的貪瀆正犯；如此「名不正、言不順」的減刑，如何自圓其說？

當了七年總統，所有元首的權力滋味，作威作福，予取予求，陳水扁已品嘗俱足。面對國政頹唐，社會紛亂，即在臨去之際，他仍無度揮霍其減刑特權。他的心中既已沒有人民，怎麼會有治安？

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?

The President can pardon Criminals, but can the People pardon Crime?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2004

TV Celebrity Pai Ping-ping, a former Green Camp supporter, denounces Chen Shui-bian’s Mass Pardon

Chen Shui-bian wants to declare a nationwide pardon for convicted criminals. Public response has been anxiety and discontent. The president can pardon convicted criminals, but can the public pardon rising crime?

Let’s put aside political considerations for the moment and look at the issue purely from the perspective of public safety. Such a large scale pardon, involving 20,000 sentence reductions and 7000 immediate releases, undermines judicial impartiality, police morale, and social order. During his seven years in power, Chen Shui-bian has failed to ensure public safety and social harmony, yet he has the audacity to cavalierly issue mass pardons before his term of office expires. This is a gross abuse of presidential power.

In recent years major felonies and white collar crimes have increased dramatically, even as the legal dragnet has developed gaping holes. One look at the crime statistics tells the entire story. The types of crimes committed have also changed: First, crimes of impulse such as opportunistic robberies, kidnappings and rapes, have increased. This has made crime prevention more difficult and increased public anxiety. Secondly, a variety of misdemeanors have proliferated, including brazen telephone fraud, the theft of iron gates and manhole covers for scrap value, and even the theft of melons from farming communities and the theft of fish from fishing villages. Such crimes are never seriously investigated. They are crimes police usually ignore, but which cause people great suffering. Yet the object of this round of pardons is the perpetrators of these misdemeanors.

If the ship of state were on an even keel, commuting sentences to rehabilitate convicts and promote social harmony would not be an extreme measure. But on today’s Taiwan, economic recession encourages the weak-willed to resort to theft or robbery, even as political confrontation leaves the public in a moral vacuum. At a time when the government has failed to maintain public safety, or rehabilitate chronic offenders, or prevent more people from taking the path toward crime, does it make sense to suddenly issue a wholesale pardon, and release large numbers of criminals back onto the streets? Is the government not concerned about adding fuel to the fire?

Consider several cases which occurred in the past week: A university co-ed in Hualien was attacked and raped at night on her way home. Fortunately villagers and fellow students were vigilant, and the perpetrator was captured. A few days ago, a man pushed his ex-wife over a cliff. If not for the persistence of the woman’s family members, who looked in every direction and followed up every lead, the truth would never have come to light. Additional cases include the theft of two senior high school students’ motor scooters and the theft of one university co-ed’s purse. These cases were solved only when the victims themselves obtained security camera footage, then captured the perpetrators on their own initiative. When more and more people must depend on themselves to see justice done, one realizes the “Thin Blue Line” has long since vanished, and the public has long since ceased to expect anything from public authorities.

After the perpetrator of the attack on the Hualian university co-ed was captured, he confessed to six previous offenses; yet no record of of his crimes could be found in police archives. Whether the victims were intimidated into remaining silent, or the police dropped the cases down the memory hole, “public safety” on Taiwan is an empty fiction. Prime Minister Su’s boast that “Public safety has taken a turn for the better” is a bare-faced lie. Yet Chen Shui-bian wants to use presidential pardons to demonstrate his “humanitarianism” toward felons? What is he doing to law-abiding citizens, except pouring salt in their wounds?

It is true that commuting sentences is the privilege of a head of state. But for Chen Shui-bian to do so for the wrong motives at the wrong time, merely reveals his callous indifference to the public’s state of mind. Consider the extent to which the burden of coping with declining public safety on Taiwan has been shifted onto the shoulders of the private sector. Neighborhoods, high rise buildings, and businesses have all arrived at a point where not hiring private security guards means not having any security whatsoever. Even farming communities and university campuses have resorted to organizing “Self-Defense Brigades” to guard against criminal intrusions. Ordinary citizens have been compelled to invest more and more of their limited resources into providing their own security. The government, meanwhile, is more and more lackadaisical in its fight against crime. Does the ruling regime feel no shame? For years the ruling party has been at a complete loss in dealing with telephone fraud. Yet it has suddenly demanded that the newly established National Communications Commission (NCC) “assume responsibility.” This kind of attitude reveals the Chen administration’s buck passing attitude.

If Chen Shui-bian has the slightest empathy for public opinion, he should devote himself to improving the economy and reducing political provocations and ideological struggles. If Taiwan’s economy could be improved, if poverty induced burglary and larceny could be reduced, that would demonstrate an ability to govern. The president has abandoned his key responsibilities. Ignoring what he must do, he is hoping to use “humanitarianism” as a pretext for an extravagant pardon of convicted felons, for purely political motives. This not only puts the cart before the horse, it is naked grandstanding and mass deception. How can such a fraudulent commutation of sentences, demonstrating sheer contempt for judicial independence, possibly be justified?

Having occupied the presidency for seven years, Chen Shui-bian has tasted all the power a head of state can ever hope to. He has abused that power and milked it for all it is worth. Confronted with a government in decay and a society in chaos, he chooses to engage in an ostentatious commutation of sentences. Does he really have public safety in mind, when he doesn’t have the people in his heart? The president can pardon criminals, but can the people pardon escalating crime?

Original Chinese below:

總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？
【聯合報／社論】
2007.04.27 02:27 am

陳水扁欲實施全國性減刑，多數民眾的反應是不安和不平。請問：總統赦免罪犯，誰來赦免惡化的治安？

撇 開此舉的政治算計不談，從治安的角度看，幅度如此之大的減刑，兩萬人刑期縮減，七千受刑人可隨即釋放出獄，不僅對司法正義構成削損，對執法人員構成打擊， 對社會治安亦構成潛在威脅。陳水扁執政七年，無能把台灣建設成一個較安全、和諧的社會，卻在即將任滿前大肆減刑，這真是對總統特權的大揮霍。

近 幾年台灣重大刑事及經濟犯罪愈見嚴重，且法網愈形疏漏，僅看通緝犯排行榜，即一目了然。同時，犯罪型態也出現變化：一是「即興犯案」的比率大為提高，諸如 隨機搶劫超商，或隨機擄人強暴；這不僅大大增加了防範難度，也升高了民眾的恐懼。二是「微罪型」的犯罪層出不窮，包括囂張的電話詐騙，從未被認真偵辦的鐵 門、鐵蓋竊案，乃至農村漁村的偷瓜、偷魚賊。這大抵是警力最怠忽的一隅，卻也是全民受害、受擾最深的一環，但此次減刑的對象卻以這些微罪、輕罪犯為主。

如 果國家承平，藉減刑協助受刑人重獲新生，增進社會和諧，尚不失為積極之計。但以台灣目前的狀況，經濟萎縮逼使意志弱者走上偷搶，政治對峙導致人民精神缺乏 追求；此時，不檢討政府對治安的維護能力，不問國家對罪犯的矯正是否周全，不設法預防更多人民步入監獄，卻驟然實施大減刑，把大批人犯放出來，難道不怕助 長亂世的動盪？

且看最近一周發生的幾個案例：花蓮女大學生在夜歸途中遭襲擊強暴， 幸虧村民和同學機警，方才擒獲歹徒。此前數日，狠心男子將前妻推落山谷，若非女方家人鍥而不捨，自行四處查訪、過濾線索，奇冤如何大白？此外，包括兩樁高 中生機車失竊、女大學生皮包被偷，都是受害人自行調閱錄影帶，自力擒賊。當社會上越來越多人須靠自力救濟來討回公道，不啻意味治安防線已瀕於崩毀，人們對 公權力也已失去了寄望。

再看，襲擊花蓮女生的歹徒就擒後，承認自己曾犯下六案；然 而在警方的資料中，卻查不到紀錄。無論受害者是被迫噤聲或遭警方吃案，台灣的治安「黑洞」多麼幽深，已不言可喻。蘇揆誇稱「治安好轉」，分明是違心之論； 而陳水扁要用減刑向罪犯體現「人道」，這無異是選擇對善良百姓雪上加霜！

的確，減 刑是元首的特權，但陳水扁此時實施，不僅在錯誤的時機提出了錯誤的藉口，他也暴露自己對人民的心情毫無感應。試想，這幾年來台灣治安惡化的重擔，有極高的 比率已轉由民間自行承受。包括社區、大樓乃至企業，皆到了不僱用保全人員不足以保安的地步；連農村及大學校園也組織「自衛隊」，來防止歹徒入侵。人民投注 可觀的資源來維護自身安全，政府在治安陣線的心力反而愈形鬆散，執政者不愧對手中公權力嗎？就如執政黨幾年來對氾濫的電話詐騙束手無策，最近突然要求 NCC「負起責任」。這種作風，在在反映了扁政府「一推二託三狡賴」的本質！

陳水 扁如果對民意稍有感應，他應該致力拚經濟，減少政治的挑撥和鬥爭；若台灣經濟能有起色，「飢寒起盜心」式的偷竊詐欺自可減少，這才是治國之本。現在，總統 拋棄核心的施政責任不顧，卻欲假藉「人道」之名大縱放刑事罪犯，目的無非是為了選舉「割喉」的權謀算計，這不僅本末倒置，更是赤裸裸的欺世盜名。更別說， 施行減刑的手，還是全力侮蔑司法的貪瀆正犯；如此「名不正、言不順」的減刑，如何自圓其說？

當了七年總統，所有元首的權力滋味，作威作福，予取予求，陳水扁已品嘗俱足。面對國政頹唐，社會紛亂，即在臨去之際，他仍無度揮霍其減刑特權。他的心中既已沒有人民，怎麼會有治安？

Tutu gives Taiwan a Lesson in Transitional Justice

Tutu gives Taiwan a Lesson in Transitional Justice
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 27, 2007

During his recent trip to Taiwan, former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu shared South Africa’s experience with the pursuit of transitional justice. To people from all walks of life, he stressed the importance of forgiveness and reconciliation. For Taiwan, which has also experienced ethnic antagonisms, Tutu’s suggestion is worth heeding.

South Africa’s situation is similar to Taiwan’s in certain respects. In the past, political power remained firmly in the hands of the white minority. With the end of apartheid in 1994, the white South Africa government relinquished its hold on political power, and the African National Congress (ANC), led by Nelson Mandela, assumed power.

Even though South Africa experienced an earth-shaking change in its system, society did not descend into chaos, bloodshed, or an orgy of retaliation. Credit must be given to Mandela’s warmth and openness, and to former president F.W. de Klerk’s wisdom and courage. Tutu’s long term criticism of ethnic apartheid, promotion of South African democratization, demands for the restoration of truth about South Africa’s history, the dissolving of racial hatred, also deserve credit. One of the most important tasks following South Africa’s political transition, was to reverse and compensate past injustices, in other words, implement “transitional justice.” Hence the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with Tutu as president. Past victims of persecution appeared and testified one after the other, restoring the truth about South Africa’s history, healing wounds, restoring justice, reaffirming society’s norms and values, and serving as a warning to future generations.

The forgiveness and reconciliation Tutu mentioned is the foundation by which South Africa maintains social harmony and pursues national growth. Following political transition, no matter how large the gap between ethnic groups and political parties might be, everyone agrees that ethnic harmony must be maintained and any words or deeds inciting ethnic conflict must be opposed. By the same token, forgiveness and reconciliation must be Taiwan’s way to dissolve differences and defuse hostilities.

Archbishop Tutu, who accepted a Taiwan Foundation for Democracy invitation to visit, made numerous statements awakening people to the truth. For example, while speaking with Lin Yi-hsiung, members of the audience asked, how can we reconcile when we haven’t uncovered the murderer in the Lin Family Murder Case? Tutu responded that to forgive is something one can do on one’s own initiative, that if one insists on waiting until the victimizer apologizes, then the victim will remain under the control of others forever.

The harm done to the victim by the victimizer can be divided into two kinds. The first kind is immediate violence or oppression. The second kind is long term trauma, rage, and anxiety. The victim cannot control the reality of the immediate violence or oppression. But the trauma, rage, and anxiety are phenomenon the victim can heal and overcome. It is not necessary to wallow in past grievances. It is even less necessary to be immobilized by rage and anxiety.

The victim often perceives himself as the weaker party, tends toward passivity, and thinks of the victimizer as the primary subject. Besides demanding punishment and compensation, the victim is seldom conscious of what he ought to do. Naturally, making excessive demands upon the victim is overly harsh. But in the process of pursuing transitional justice on Taiwan, we hope not only to restore justice and equality, to leave behind an example for later generations, but also to establish a happy home. We consider the act of exploiting ethnicity as a label, as a price, or even as a tool, a crime we must never repeat.

The responsibility of the victimizer is of course heaver. If one constantly shifts responsibility onto others, if one cannot face one’s past mistakes, if one refuses to engage in self-introspection, if one refuses to apologize to and compensate the victim, then one can never escape the shadows of the past, never be free from accusations and condemnation, and never win the public trust.

During the “International Symposium on Transitional Justice and National Reconciliation” Tutu pointed out that people need merciful and gentle treatment, that the past will not simply vanish. If one refuses to acknowledge the past, the past will return to haunt us. The universe is just. Right and wrong will make themselves known. It may not look that way on the surface, but justice will prevail.

Long term political struggles have undermined Taiwan’s ethnic harmony. But if victimizers are unwilling to engage in self-introspection and offer sincere apologies, and if victims remain mired in past grievances, then what will we bequeath ourselves and our children, other than a recurring legacy of trauma and rage?

If on the contrary, when faced with historical mistakes, one can find the courage to face one’s responsibilities, if one is willing to open one’s heart and forgive, if one is willing to overcome historical grievances and start anew, then one can liberate oneself from the bonds of the past and discover new opportunities for Taiwan’s future. If South Africa, with its racial differences and color differences can strive for racial harmony and mutal prosperity, then Taiwan, with its homogeneous society, has no reason to adopt a policy of “kill or be killed.”

The mistakes of history must not be forgotten. Victimizers must not be let off lightly, because the refusal to distinguish between right and wrong will sap a society’s vitality. But even as we remember history, we must ask ourselves whether a society’s cohesiveness and a nation’s unity are to be founded on hatred, suspicion and rejection, or on love, tolerance, and reconciliation?

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報 中國時報
　2007.04.26
屠圖給台灣上了一堂「轉型正義」課
中時社論

最近正在台灣訪問的前南非大主教屠圖，此行不僅和台灣各界分享了南非追求轉型正義的經驗，更一再強調寬恕與和解的重要性。對於深受族群對立之苦的台灣，屠圖的建議，的確值得省思。

南 非的狀況其實和台灣有點類似，過去政權長期掌握在少數白人族群手中，一九九四年種族隔離政策終結後，白人政府讓出政權，曼德拉率領的非洲民族議會黨 （ＡＮＣ）接手執政。南非雖然經歷天翻地覆的體制變更，社會卻未陷入混亂失序或流血報復。這當然要歸功於曼德拉的溫暖開闊，和前總統戴克拉克的睿智與勇 氣。而屠圖長期以來批判種族隔離政策、推動南非民主化、還原歷史真相、化解族群恩怨的努力，同樣居功厥偉。

南非政權輪替後的最重要工作之一，是扭轉及補償之前的不公不義，也就是實現「轉型正義」。因此成立了真相與和解委員會，由屠圖擔任主席，昔日受迫害的人現身說法，一一還原歷史真相，撫平傷痛，重建正義標準與社會價值，也作為日後子孫的警惕。

屠圖所提到的寬恕與和解，是南非維持社會和諧追求國家成長的重要基礎。政權輪替以來，無論族群與政黨之間有多大歧見，至少都認同必須致力維護族群和諧，反對任何挑撥族群製造敵對的言行。同樣地，寬恕與和解，也將是台灣社會化解歧見消弭敵意的必要路徑。

接 受民主基金會邀請訪台的屠圖大主教，近日來在台灣發表了不少發人深省的談話。例如與林義雄對談時，有與會者質疑，沒有找到真相，如同林宅血案沒有凶手時， 又該如何和解？屠圖勉勵說，寬恕是可以主動的，如果必須等到加害者道歉，那受害者就永遠會受到控制。受害者應該主動把寬恕的禮物給別人，才不會永遠留在受 害者的角色。

的確，加害者對受害者的傷害有兩種。第一種是當下的暴力或壓迫，第二種是長期遺留的創傷、憤怒與恐懼。對於暴力傷害壓迫的事 實，受害者當時既不能控制，事後也無法抹滅，但創傷、憤怒與恐懼，受害者卻是可以癒療及超越的，不一定要永遠被過去的傷痛淹沒，更不一定要永遠被憎恨恐懼 捆綁得動彈不得。

受害者往往心態上自覺是弱者，傾向於被動、以加害者為主體對象的思考方式。除了要求加害者受到懲罰及提供賠償外，很少意 識到自己也該做些什麼。當然，過度要求受害者也失之嚴苛，但在台灣追求轉型正義的過程中，我們不僅希望重建公平正義的價值坐標，為後世留下可供遵循的良好 典範，也希望構建一個和諧幸福的美好家園。而曾經以族群為標籤、為代價、甚至為工具的各種可恥罪行，我們既覺昨日之非，當然務求永不重蹈覆轍。

相對於受害者，加害者的責任當然更為沉重。如果一味逃避推諉，不能勇敢面對過去的過錯，也不曾誠心反省、道歉及努力彌補受害者，那麼將永遠擺脫不了過去的陰影，無法讓指控與譴責停止，也不可能得到民眾的信任。

在「轉型正義與國族融合」研討會中，屠圖也指出，人需要慈悲與溫柔對待，過去不會就此消失；若不承認過去，過去會回來傷害我們，一定會後悔當時沒有面對過去。宇宙有道德感，是非對錯都會發生影響，也許表面上看不出來，但正義終究還是會勝利的。

不諱言地，長期以來，台灣社會的族群關係曾經深受政治鬥爭之害。但如果加害者不肯誠心反省道歉，受害者又耽溺於傷痛的過去，那麼，我們除了一再複製創傷與憤怒，還能給自己和孩子留下什麼有意義的東西？

相 反地，如果在面對歷史過錯時，能展現出勇氣與負責態度；如果願打開胸襟主動給予寬恕，勇敢跨越歷史傷痕重新出發，不僅能解開捆綁台灣的繩索，也能為台灣的 將來開拓新的機會。如果種族膚色不同的南非，都願努力追尋族群的共存共榮，那麼同文同種的台灣社會，更沒有理由必須廝殺得你死我活。

歷史的過錯不能遺忘，加害者不能輕易原諒，因為是非不分將毀壞一個社會的成長力量。然而，在不遺忘歷史的同時，我們還必須思索，一個社會的攜手前進，一個國家的團結發展，靠的是仇恨、猜忌與排擠，還是愛、包容、寬恕與和解？

Why not solve the Discretionary Fund Controversy by Legislative Means?

Why not solve the Discretionary Fund Controversy by Legislative Means?
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 25, 2007

The Discretionary Fund case is currently being tried by the courts. What exactly is the Discretionary Fund? Are the Discretionary Funds public funds, or private funds? Ripples continue to spread from the Legislative Yuan over whether the Ministry of Justice has changed its legal opinion.

Should the Legislative Yuan be looking into the Discretionary Fund? If it does so only because Ma Ying-jeou has been indicted, that is not a good reason. The Legislative Yuan should respect the findings of the judiciary. It should not pass legislation tailor-made to help Ma Ying-jeou, just as it should not amend the presidential election laws and change the eligibility requirements to hinder him. The Discretionary Fund issue is not about Ma Ying-jeou individually, or even the hundreds and thousands of administrative heads who have drawn upon the Discretionary Fund in the past. The Discretionary Fund issue is basically a system design issue. It is the Legislative Yuan’s responsibility to legislate in strict accordance with standard procedure. The design of the Discretionary Fund system contains defects. An inability to agree on the legal interpretation may lead to an inability to agree on legal responsibility and trial results, creating anxiety among central and local government officials island-wide. Even worse, it could become a political football in the coming struggle for the presidency. The Legislative Yuan has a responsibility to clear the air by returning to the fundamentals.

The Discretionary Fund did not make its debut today. It has no basis in law. It was created by default, by means of administrative orders handed down over the years. It is a bad precedent. The right way, the only way, for a nation under the rule of law, is to establish a system by means of the legislative process. The source of the problem, the cause of the controversy, turns on whether the Discretionary Funds are public funds or private funds,

The Discretionary Fund exists to handle the common needs of administrative heads and other political appointees. Even Legislative Yuan committee members have the same problem. A mixture of official business and private business is unavoidable during a political appointee’s official activities. Wedding invitations and funeral notices are the best example. High level political appointees receive countless wedding invitations and funeral notices. On the one hand they are personal matters. On the other hand they are official duties. Prior to disbursement Discretionary Funds are of course public funds. If following disbursement, they are still regarded as public funds, then administrative heads are clearly permitted to use public funds for private purposes. If following disbursement they are regarded as private funds used for public purposes, then they are a form of subsidy or allowance. By its very nature the Discretionary Fund will be used for both public and private purposes. Therefore a rational system should estimate in advance the expenses a particular office is likely to incur, and once the funds have been disbursed, omit the need to provide original itemized receipts. An advance estimate ensures that the funds disbursed will fall within a reasonable range. The system acknowledges that certain officials will incur certain expenses, otherwise it would not allow those officials to draw from the Discretionary Fund in the first place.

The fact is, half the Discretionary Fund requires only the submission of a receipt, a written acknowledgment that a specified sum of money has been received. It does not require original itemized receipts. That this distinction has not been made sufficiently clear constitutes a defect that legislation ought to address. If legislation can replace administrative orders, the defects in the system can be corrected. By contrast, once the Discretionary Fund issue became a high-visibility criminal case, the National Audit Office reacted by engaging in overkill, issuing administrative orders requiring original itemized receipts for all Discretionary Fund disbursements.

Requiring original itemized receipts for all Discretionary Fund disbursements will solve only the National Audit Office Main Accounting Department’s problems with the assignment of blame. It neglects the reason for the Discretionary Fund in the first place, a solution to the problem of how to provide funds used for both public and private purposes. Current procedures fail to address this problem.

This problem should be addressed through legislation, because the rules are unclear, and administrative orders lack legitimacy, creating legal pitfalls which should not exist in a country governed by the rule of law. If officials who have received Discretionary Funds find themselves in legal hot water as a result of the duties of their office, this violates the legal principle of “nulla poena, sine lege” (no penalty without a law). The Legislative Yuan cannot solve all cases by means of the legislative process. That is the responsibility of prosecutors. But a Discretionary Fund Law would address the defects within the system and provide a point of reference for prosecutors.

The Discretionary Fund case was triggered by the controversy over the State Affairs Confidential Expense case. Chen Shui-bian drew from the State Affairs Confidential Expense Allowance rather than the Discretionary Fund. There is good reason to examine it for defects as well. The State Affairs Confidential Expense Allowance is for secret official business, and is purely public in nature. It is clearly different from the Discretionary Fund, which is both public as well as private in nature. The problem is that besides needing the State Affairs Confidential Expense Allowance, the president, like other officials, also needs the Discretionary Fund. The system should allow the president to draw from the Discretionary Fund, but it must not allow the State Affairs Confidential Expense Allowance to be conflated with the Discretionary Fund, and must not allow the president to draw from the State Affairs Confidential Expense Allowance as if it were the same as the Discretionary Fund.

Defects in the system have triggered disputes over the prosecution of the Discretionary Fund case These defects must be remedied by returning to the source, by allowing the legal system to repair the legal system. Custom-tailored laws must not be allowed to replace trials. Systemic defects must not be allowed to persist. Legislators concerned about the Discretionary Fund issue need to be clear about what they need to do.

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.04.25
何不藉由立法手段 一次解決特別費爭議
中時社論

特別費案件正由法院審理中，特別費的性質究竟為何？ 在立法院中餘波蕩漾，為了法務部的見解有無變更，特別費是公款還是私款的問題，爭執不休。

立 法院為什麼該研究特別費的性質？如果只是為了馬英九的官司，並沒有正當性。因為立法院應該尊重司法審判，不該針對個案立法，就像是不該為了馬英九繫案而去 修法改變競選總統的參選資格一樣。但是特別費的問題，並不只是涉及馬英九個別的問題，也不只是關係到千百位政府首長過去如何支用特別費的問題；特別費的問 題，根本上是個制度設計的問題。用正統的立法制定適切可行的制度，正是立法院的責任所在。現在特別費的制度設計出了問題，解釋上莫衷一是，還可能因此引發 刑事責任與審判結果的莫衷一是，搞得全國從中央到地方的政府首長人心惶惶，更進一步成為政治惡鬥、搶奪總統權位的賭博籌碼，立法院其實負有很大的責任，正 本清源，是該在制度上做一次徹底的澄清了。

首長特別費的存在，不自今日始，並未在法律上建立制度，而只是長期以行政命令因陋就簡，其實是錯誤的第一步；用立法建立制度，當然是法治國家的不二法門。而特別費的性質究竟是公款還是私款，所以引起高度爭議，本是問題本身性質使然。

特 別費之所以存在，是要處理行政首長乃至政府其他部門政務層級人員的共通需要，即使如立法院立法委員也有相同的問題。乃就是在政務層級人員的公務活動之中， 有各種公務與私務性質夾雜的開支，無法避免。紅白帖子就是一個最好的例子。高層政務人員會有為數眾多的紅白帖子，一方面是私人的關係使然，一方面也是職務 需要所致。特別費的支領，乃兼含公務與私務的性質。特別費在制度設計上，領取之前，當然是公款；領取之後，如果仍然以公款視之，則無異允許首長以公款支付 兼有私務性質的支出。如果領款之後以私款視之，則其性質亦是一種帶有公務目的，以公務為負擔的私款，也就是一種實質補貼。正是因為此中性質兼含公私，所以 一個合理的制度，應該是預先定期估算每一個職務具有此種性質的花費若干，以概算的方式支領，一旦支用，即不必事後另以單據核銷。因為事前的概算已經確保款 項的使用會落在合理的額度範圍之內，因為制度上必須先已認定相關職務必然會有相關支出的必要，才會容許擔任其職的人支領特別費。

準 此而 言，實務上特別費中半數只須出據領取，不須事後另外檢據核銷的做法，其實就是應該以立法加以落實的制度設計。只要能以法律取代過去的行政命令，制度上的瑕 疵就可以解決。反倒是特別費成為眾所矚目的刑事案件之後，審計部門再以行政命令要求一切特別費都應該實報實銷的做法，乃屬矯枉過正的錯誤處置。要求所有的 特別費實報實銷，其實只能解決審計主計部門的責任問題，卻完全忽略了特別費所以需要存在，兼具公私性質卻又有取據困難的現象，應該有制度上的克服手段。現 在的做法，並不能真正解決相關職務上的需要。

之所以強調現在應該用立法方式正面解 決這個問題，是因為制度設計模糊不清，以及行政命令的位 階過低，製造了一個法治國家不應出現的陷阱。所有領取特別費的政府首長，假如因為實務上的需要而竟致刑罰纏身，是完全違背了罪刑法定主義的精神。當然，立 法院通過立法並不當然可以解決既有的案件，那是審判部門應該處理的問題。但是，適當正確將特別費加以立法，可以用來觀照既有制度的瑕疵，也可提供審判部門 參考。

該附帶一提的是，特別費案件是從國務機要費案件的話題引發的。總統支領國務 機要費而無特別費，其實也有從制度上加以檢討的理由。國 務機要費是為了機密的公務所需，是純粹公用的性質，與特別費的亦公亦私有所不同。問題是總統有國務機要費的需要之外，其實也有特別費的需要，與其他政府首 長並無不同，制度上應該容許總統支領特別費，也不應該不加區辨國務機要費與特別費的性質不同，用領取國務機要費的名義領取特別費。

制度設計不良，引發了特別費訴訟的爭議，必須正本清源，用法律制度解決制度的瑕疵，而不是用法律取代個案的審判，卻讓制度的錯誤長期存在。關心特別費問題的立法委員，是不是該採取某些作為了？

Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn

Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 24, 2007

Comment: The following China Times editorial evokes mixed feelings. On the one hand, I empathize with the China Times editor. When I say I “empathize,” I mean I identify with and understand the editor’s situation, feelings, and motives. Politicians should behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would.

On the other hand, I sympathize with the China Times editor. When I say I “sympathize,” I mean I feel pity, sorrow, and compassion for the editor’s distress. I feel pity, sorrow and compassion for the editor’s distress because I have come to realize that politicians who seek elective office in democracies and other monopolistic states will never behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would.

The Chinese have an expression: 緣木求魚 yuan mu qiu yu. It means: “climbing a tree in search of fish.” As you can probably guess, the expression refers to the fruitless act of looking for something where it will never be found.

Expecting politicians of any stripe to behave in the responsible manner the editor wishes they would is an example of “climbing a tree in search of a fish.”

The vast majority of people alive today are under the spell of the democratic myth. They genuinely believe that democracy’s raison d’etre is to protect the rights of the ordinary citizen.

They don’t realize democracy’s actual reason for being is to enable ambitious politicians to exercise limitless power and remake the world in their own image, at the ordinary citizen’s expense.

Once one understands democracy’s actual reason for being, one will never again make the mistake of “climbing a tree in search of fish.” One will never again labor under the delusion that one’s “democratically-elected leaders” have any interest whatsoever in looking into their hearts, or leaving us a little seed corn.

See:
Central Election Committee Reform must not be Undermined

Look into Your Hearts, and Leave Us a Little Seed Corn
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 24, 2007

As the legislative elections loom, the spectacle of ruling government and opposition lawmakers recklessly promoting pork barrel legislation in their struggle for re-election is being repeated once again. On the one hand, they slash taxes. On the other hand, they expand welfare benefits. Tomorrow the Legislative Yuan will review the “Temporary Act for Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly.” Ruling and opposition lawmakers are eagerly pushing for increases. In a single breath, they have proposed 25 versions. The smallest proposed increase is 4000NT, the largest 10,000NT. They apparently consider the nation’s finances child’s play.

Meanwhile, the Executive Yuan is making it up as it goes along. If someone asks for an inch, the Executive Yuan gives a mile. The Ministry of Interior led the way by proposing a draft for a “National Annuity Law,” attempting to combine Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly, Welfare Subsidies to Farmers, and other welfare benefits into one, sacrificing a smaller sum to prevent lawmakers of all stripes from increasing Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly.

This scattering of dollar bills to buy votes has not stopped at Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly and a National Annuity. A little earlier, the Legislative Yuan had already proposed abolishing the inheritance tax. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) also responded by making it up as it went along. The MOF announced day that it was considering reducing the maximum rate for the inheritance tax and the gift tax by half, substituting tax exemptions and tax deductions with a “Basic Living Expense,” and drastically reducing the individual income tax. This was another case of giving a mile when someone asks for an inch.

That’s how it is this year, and that’s how it has been in years past. In March 2004, we held a presidential election. In November 2004 we held a legislative election. In January of that year, the Legislative Yuan passed the amended land tax bill after three readings. It implemented a one half reduction of two year property appreciation taxes, unconditionally extending it for one year. Later, in February of that year, the Blue Camp Lien Soong ticket posted advertisements pledging that if it was elected, it would drastically increase government employees and teachers’ salaries, by an amount equal to “two national incomes.” The Green Camp Democratic Progressive Party took one look, and Central Personnel Administration Chief Lee Lee Yi-yang immediately wrote out a check, guaranteeing that he would increase the military, civil service, and teacher salaries by three percent

Both the Blue and Green camps, both the ruling and opposition parties, are of one mind on this. Both add fuel to the flames, both encourage the unhealthy practice of exchanging dollar bills for votes. Even conservative former Kuomintang Chairman Ma Ying-jeou indicated the other day that he approved increased Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly. As the onrushing wave carries everyone along in its wake, the only ones remaining are the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics and and handful of clear-headed legislators such as Wang Jung-chang, standing their ground, appealing to the ruling and opposition parties to step on the brakes and not neglect the nation’s finances.

Nobody opposes the social welfare system. Providing adequate care to the elderly, the weak, the disabled, elderly widows and widowers, and the poverty-stricken, is the government’s responsibility. However social welfare should not be coercive egalitarian redistribution of wealth. Not all the elderly are poverty-stricken. Not all farmers are in financial straits. Without greater discernment, the expenditure of vast sums, not based on actual poverty, but on age, will only make it harder to conserve resources and to look after poverty-stricken people who truly need to be looked after. Currently the central government spends 80 billion NT every year on Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly and Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers. If one still wishes to increase benefits, be aware that every time Welfare Subsidies to the Elderly are increased 1,000 Yuan, the burden on the state treasury increases 10 billion Yuan. Every time Welfare Subsidies to Elderly Farmers are increased 1,000 Yuan, the burden on the state treasury increases 84 billion Yuan. At the same time, the National Health Insurance system teeters on the brink of collapse, insurance premiums keep increasing, the scope of health insurance coverage keeps diminishing, safeguards to poor patients keep shrinking, and the effectiveness of medical health insurance treatment keeps declining. Put simply, it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul!

The reason this kind of pork barrel legislation, which reduces tax revenues even as it increases benefits, appears at election time, is that the beneficiaries are clearly defined, while the victims are not. Reducing taxes may allow certain taxpayers to feel that their tax burden has been lightened. Increased benefits may allow certain recipients to increase their income. Conversely, the financial shortfall created by reducing taxes while increasing benefits has no clearcut victims.

Theoretically, the financial shortfall can be made up by issuing government bonds, but eventually bonds must be repaid by means of tax increases. The problem is, a nation endures, and its central government never goes bankrupt. Therefore the day of reckoning on which the shortfall must be made up by means of tax increases constantly recedes into the future. Therefore, regardless of whether one is reducing taxes or increasing benefits, the shortfall can always be covered by issuing bonds. No need for any specific target to bear the burden created by pork barrel legislation. Therefore, no matter whether one is reducing taxes or increasing benefits, every kind of pork barrel legislation is theoretically a Zero-sum Game. But in practice, so long as the government does not collapse, it’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition. Because of this, ruling and opposition party political figures have unscrupulously resorted to pork barrel legislation, undermining the nation’s finances and sapping the nation’s vitality.

This resort to pork barrel legislation every time an election rolls around, is already deeply ingrained in Taiwan’s election culture. Frankly it’s going to be difficult to rectify this trend. To expect ordinary citizens to spontaneously awaken and resist the temptation to exchange votes for dollar bills is wishful thinking. The only hope is that ruling and opposition party political figures will look into their hearts, reach a consensus, abide by a gentlemen’s agreement, and refrain from cutthroat competition. One needs to realize that if one resorts to pork barrel legislation to buy votes, one’s opponent can do the exactly the same thing. Whether one engages in cutthroat competition or not, makes no difference as far as votes are concerned, but a major difference as far as the nation’s finances are concerned. The Blue and Green camp “Princes” need to be clear on this. Instead of cutthroat competition, they ought to declare a truce, and leave a little seed corn for the nation’s future!

Original Chinese below:

中時電子報
中國時報
2007.04.24
拿出良心 為國家財政留點老本吧
中時社論

趕在立委改選前夕，朝野立委藉推錢坑法案拚選舉的戲碼再度重演，一邊是掄刀刪砍稅負收入、一邊則大筆擴增社福支出。立法院明天將審查「敬老津貼暫行條例」修正案，朝野立委踴躍提案，竟能一口氣提出二十五個漲價版本，上漲額度少則四千，多則一萬，形同視國家財政如兒戲。

在此同時，行政院則是且戰且走，要一塊給五毛，拿饅頭換餡餅，由內政部領銜提出「國民年金法」草案，試圖將敬老津貼、老農津貼等各種社福支出，匯總合一，犧牲較少額度，抵擋各路立委所提調高敬老津貼法案。

這股撒鈔票買選票的風潮，不僅僅止於提高敬老津貼、實施國民年金，稍早之前，立法院已經主動提案，要廢除遺產贈與稅制，而財政部的因應對策，也是且戰且走。該部日前宣布，考慮將遺產稅與贈與稅最高稅率，降低一半，並且，著手研究以「基本生活費」取代免稅額與扣除額，打算大降綜所稅。這也是要一塊給五毛，拿饅頭換餡餅。

今年如此，往年亦然，民國九十三年間，三月有總統大選，十一月有立委大選。先是那年元月間，立法院三讀通過土地稅法修正案，將實施兩年的土地增值稅減半徵收規定，無條件延長一年。之後，那年二月，藍營連宋登廣告，承諾如果當選，要大幅調高公教人員待遇，幅度達到「兩個國民所得」。綠營民進黨一看，人事行政局長李逸洋馬上開支票，保證調高軍公教待遇三％。

不分藍綠，朝野有志一同，同時推波助瀾，助長鈔票換選票歪風，就連行事一向保守的前國民黨主席馬英九，日前也曾表示，贊成提高敬老津貼。狂瀾席捲之際，只剩下主管支出的主計處，以及立委王榮璋等少數頭腦清醒立委，中流砥柱，呼籲朝野趕快煞車，切勿枉顧國家財政。

沒有人會反對社會福利制度，對於老弱傷殘、鰥寡無依、生活困苦民眾，給與充分照顧更是政府的職責。然而，社會福利畢竟不是齊頭式發鈔票，老人未必困苦，老農未必艱辛，倘若不加鑑別，未依困苦實情，而按身分年齡，耗費鉅額經費，反而難以收縮資源，照顧真正需要照顧的困苦艱辛民眾。目前中央政府每年用於敬老津貼、老農津貼支出，已近八百億元。倘若還要往上加碼，敬老津貼每增加一千元，國庫每年增加一百億元負擔；老農津貼每增加一千元，國庫每年增加八十四億元負擔。在此同時，全民健保搖搖欲墜，保費逐漸增加，健保支付範圍卻逐漸縮小，貧困民眾醫療保障日益縮水，優待醫療健保福利成效大打折扣。簡單的說，就是補了這裡，卻缺了那裡！

選舉期間之所以會出現錢坑法案症候群，既減稅收又增支出，其關鍵因素即在於這些錢坑法案具有「受益對象明確，受害苦主模糊」特性。減稅收，可使特定納稅人減輕納稅犧牲感；增支出，可使特定領受人增加收入。另一方面，減稅收與增支出所造成的財政缺口，卻無明確的受害對象。

理論上，財政缺口可藉由增發公債暫時填補，但公債最後終究須靠增稅才能償還。問題是，國家永續存在，中央政府不會破產清算，所以，這「終究須靠增稅償還」之日，永遠遙遙無期。所以，無論減稅收還是增支出，都可以靠發行公債軋平財政缺口，無需特定對象承受錢坑法案所造成的犧牲。於是，不論減稅收還是增支出，各種錢坑法案理論上是正負相抵的「零和遊戲（Zero-sum Game）」，但實際上，只要政府不倒，都是無本生意，只有正面收益，而無負面損失。正因為這項特色，朝野政治人物多年來才會如此肆無忌憚，亂挖錢坑，把國家財政挖得千瘡百孔，元氣大傷。

這股每逢選舉就挖錢坑的歪風，已經內化為台灣根深蒂固的選舉文化。要矯正這股歪風，老實說，很難期盼基層民眾自發覺醒，拒絕政客撒鈔票換選票誘惑。唯一的指望，就是朝野政治人物拿出良心，針對這種歪風形成共識，遵照君子協定，不搞惡性競爭。要知道，你會挖錢坑買票，對手一樣能比照辦理，彼此競相惡性競爭，與彼此完全不競爭，對選票影響都一樣，但對財政影響就大不相同。藍綠兩營的天王們，應該看清楚這一點，與其惡性競爭，不如雙方休兵，為國家財政留一點老本吧！

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 22, 2007

The “Four Princes of the DPP” (actually One Princess and Three Princes) From left to right: Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Yu Hsi-kuen, Su Tseng-chang

The second Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential primary will also be the party’s final political debate. As matters stand, compromise is impossible. The DPP primary process must end, and the DPP’s presidential candidate can be decided only after a party vote and an opinion poll.

The DPP primary process has underscored two phenomena: First, the party is spinning its wheels. No progress or breakthroughs have been made during the debate over the party’s direction and policies. Second, internal divisions among party factions have worsened, and have become life and death struggles between mortal enemies.

First, the internal divisions. Ten days ago, two presidential and vice presidential tickets still seemed a possibility. But Su Tseng-chang repeatedly declared that “If I lose the primaries, I won’t accept the vice presidency.” On the one hand his declaration sharpened internal divisions. On the other hand, it made healing those divisions impossible. Frank Hsieh, by stating that, “I will not disappoint my supporters, I will not withdraw from the primaries,” also slammed the door shut on compromise. Most intriguing of all was Frank Hsieh’s statement: “Everyone wants to be president. But everyone should have the magnanimity to accept the role of vice president.” On the one hand, this statement chided Su Tseng-chang for insisting that he would not accept the vice presidency. On the other hand it may have been Frank Hsieh’s way of keeping the option of the vice presidency open. In other words, in case Su Tseng-chang wins his bid for the presidential slot in the primaries, the Frank Hsieh camp does not want to watch idly as the winner takes all, but wants to reserve the right to be part of a “Su Hsieh ticket.” Hsieh figures that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if Su wins the primaries, will he still respond to extortionate demands for a “Su Hsieh ticket” from the Frank Hsieh camp? If Su loses in the primaries, having stated that he would not accept the vice presidency, can the Su camp really swallow its pride and eat crow? These divisive struggles within the DPP will probably continue through the presidential election and beyond.

Next, the party’s direction and policies. Chen Shui-bian is the DPP’s chief sinner, and yet the party primaries have become a competition among the Four Princes to see who can demonstrate the most unquestioning loyalty toward the party’s chief sinner. This absurd scenario reveals that the DPP primaries had nothing to do with reform or self-introspection, and everything to do with which of the Four Princes would have the honor of being Chen Shui-bian’s chief accomplice, hence designated heir. As for the issue of Taiwan independence, Yu Hsi-kuen, who advocates abolishing the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and champions “de jure Taiwan independence,” had the worst showing in the primaries. Apparently even DPP members consider his agenda a pipe dream. The other three princes, Hsieh, Su, and Lu, continued supporting the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and advocated “making constitutional revisions based on existing constitutional procedures,” a policy that boils down to maintaining the status quo. In which case, aren’t they nothing more than Kuomintang (KMT) fellow travellers? What have they contributed to the Sacred Cause of Taiwan independence? Other debates involved nothing but mutual recriminations over policy flip-flops on the Suhua Freeway and the Losheng Sanatorium. When it came to important policies affecting the nation’s political and economic future, all we were offered were empty boasts about “adopting a global vision” and “ensuring perpetual development.” Because none of the participants were able to give a concrete reason why they had come, the debate turned into attacks upon each others’ character. Su accused Hsieh of being “devious.” Hsieh accused Su of “inconsistencies in policy, inconsistencies in thought.” This inadvertently revealed the real plight of the DPP. The nation is in decline because the character of its leadership is in decline.

The ugly truth that the DPP primaries have laid bare is this: the DPP is a political party whose core value is the lust for power. Its core value is not democratic reform, otherwise it would not have ruled in utter disregard of the law as it has. It is not even Taiwan independence, otherwise it would not have flip-flopped on Taiwan independence and engaged in self-deception and deception of others as it has. The DPP’s core value is naked power lust, otherwise it would not have eagerly abetted the thoroughly corrupt Chen Shui-bian, and consigned the nation to a plight in which democracy and the rule of law have vanished into thin air. The DPP can paint the Pan Blues as “Chi-Com fellow travellers” who “do not love Taiwan.” The DPP can paint Su Tseng-chang as a heretic of the “New Tide Faction,” who is “violating the DPP’s fundamental values.” The DPP can paint Frank Hsieh as a “One China Constitution” advocate even more “pro reunification” than the Chinese Communist Party. Whether such allegations are true or false is irrelevant. What matters is they are useful in one’s struggle for power.

The DPP is using the same tactics it used against the Pan Blues against presidential primary rivals within its own party. Like criminal gangs accustomed to poisoning villagers, who live with poison day in and day out, they have finally poisoned themselves and their families with lethal doses of their own toxins. Following these primaries, power struggles within the DPP have intensified to an unprecedented degree. These worsening power struggles will inevitably leave deep, visible, and permanent scars on the DPP.

Su Tseng-chang said “character is the most important factor in a president.” This party primary has not only exposed the character of the Four Princes, it has also exposed the perverted and decadent character of the DPP as a political party.

Original Chinese below:

《社論》
民進黨初選效應：人格與黨格的沉淪
社論

民進黨總統初選第二場也是最後一場政見會謝幕，就當下情勢來看，已無「協調」空間，初選的程序勢須走到盡頭，辦完黨員投票及民調，始能決定由何人出線代表民進黨競選總統。

初選進行至今，凸顯了兩種現象：一、路線及政策辯論原地打轉，毫無進展及突破；二、黨內派系分裂急遽惡化，幾乎成了敵我鬥爭。

先 談內爭。大約十天以前，似仍存有「初選前兩名正副搭檔」的想像空間。但蘇貞昌幾 度宣示「初選落敗，不當副手」，一方面使初選趨於尖銳，另一方面亦使選後療治裂痕的藥方頓告消失。謝長廷則稱，「不會讓支持者掉淚，初選絕不退讓」，也已 關上了「協調」之門。最可玩味的是，謝長廷又稱：「每個人都想要當總統，但也應有願當副手的雅量。」此話一方面或在揶揄蘇貞昌宣示不當副手，另一方面卻也 許是為謝長廷自己可能出任副手預留餘地。也就是說，初選倘由蘇貞昌勝出競選總統，謝長廷陣營若不容蘇「全碗捧去」，亦不無轉而爭取「蘇謝配」的可能性。謝 的算盤也許是「無魚蝦也好」，但蘇若初選勝出，還會回應謝長廷陣營「蘇謝配」的勒索嗎？反過來說，蘇若初選失敗，且已言明不當副手，難道蘇系真會打脫牙和 血吞？民進黨內的撕裂性鬥爭，恐將由黨內初選延伸影響至正式總統大選，甚至大選以後。

再 談路線。陳水扁是民進黨的大罪人，但初選卻成了四大天王向陳大罪人效忠的競賽。 此種荒謬的場景，凸顯了這場初選完全沒有改革反省的意味，四大天王只是在比賽誰是陳水扁的頭號共犯而已。至於台獨問題，主張廢除「台灣前途決議文」及力挺 「法理台獨」的游錫?，顯然在初選中人氣最差，民進黨人亦視其為白日夢囈而已；其餘謝、蘇、呂三人，皆仍站在「台灣前途決議文」的底線上，並一致主張「應 循現行憲法所定程序進行修憲」，亦即實際上仍主張「維持現狀」；既然如此，他們不啻皆是國民黨的同路人而已，在台獨大業上又豈有一丁點的推進？再看其他方 面的政策辯論，則只聞相互攻訐蘇花高、樂生院的政策反覆；至於國家政經大計，卻只用「放眼全球」、「永續發展」幾句假、大、空話，在點綴場面。於是，正因 政策辯論說不出個所以然來，所以轉而相互攻擊對方的「人格」。蘇說謝「奸巧」，謝說蘇「政策不一致，思想不一貫」；這麼一來，反而揭露了民進黨如今真正的 困境所在：一切國政沉淪的問題，皆出自主政者人格境界沉淪的問題！

初選進行至今所 暴露的政治真相是：民進黨竟是一個以權謀鬥爭為核心價值的政黨。其 核心價值，分明不是民主改革，否則就不會違法亂政至此地步；也不是台獨，否則就不會自欺欺人、反覆搖擺至此地步。民進黨的核心價值只是權謀鬥爭而已，否則 就不會力挺貪腐無狀的陳水扁，亦不會使國家陷於今日民主法治萬般落空的痛苦之中。民進黨可以將「泛藍」打成「中共同路人」、「不愛台灣」；亦可將蘇貞昌打 成「新潮流化」、「違反民進黨基本價值」；謝長廷的「憲法一中」更遭追殺，甚至稱其比中共還要「統派」。這些，是非真偽皆莫辨，只要有利於權謀鬥爭即可。

民 進黨用於對泛藍鬥爭的全套戰法，如今已全盤移用於黨內總統初選的鬥爭。猶如一個 慣常對村人下毒的邪惡集團，由於日日與毒共處，終於自身也中了劇毒，且亦毒害了自己的家族。經過此次初選，民進黨內權謀鬥爭的深化、惡化、毒化及公開化， 皆已超越過去，這必將對民進黨體質的繼續惡化與毒化留下深刻及公開的傷痕，影響久遠。

蘇貞昌說「當總統人格最重要」，經此次黨內初選，不但凸顯了四大天王的「人格」，且亦看出了民進黨「黨格」的畸變與沉淪。

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 22, 2007

The “Four Princes of the DPP” (actually One Princess and Three Princes) From left to right: Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Yu Hsi-kuen, Su Tseng-chang

The second Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential primary will also be the party’s final political debate. As matters stand, compromise is impossible. The DPP primary process must end, and the DPP’s presidential candidate can be decided only after a party vote and an opinion poll.

The DPP primary process has underscored two phenomena: First, the party is spinning its wheels. No progress or breakthroughs have been made during the debate over the party’s direction and policies. Second, internal divisions among party factions have worsened, and have become life and death struggles between mortal enemies.

First, the internal divisions. Ten days ago, two presidential and vice presidential tickets still seemed a possibility. But Su Tseng-chang repeatedly declared that “If I lose the primaries, I won’t accept the vice presidency.” On the one hand his declaration sharpened internal divisions. On the other hand, it made healing those divisions impossible. Frank Hsieh, by stating that, “I will not disappoint my supporters, I will not withdraw from the primaries,” also slammed the door shut on compromise. Most intriguing of all was Frank Hsieh’s statement: “Everyone wants to be president. But everyone should have the magnanimity to accept the role of vice president.” On the one hand, this statement chided Su Tseng-chang for insisting that he would not accept the vice presidency. On the other hand it may have been Frank Hsieh’s way of keeping the option of the vice presidency open. In other words, in case Su Tseng-chang wins his bid for the presidential slot in the primaries, the Frank Hsieh camp does not want to watch idly as the winner takes all, but wants to reserve the right to be part of a “Su Hsieh ticket.” Hsieh figures that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if Su wins the primaries, will he still respond to extortionate demands for a “Su Hsieh ticket” from the Frank Hsieh camp? If Su loses in the primaries, having stated that he would not accept the vice presidency, can the Su camp really swallow its pride and eat crow? These divisive struggles within the DPP will probably continue through the presidential election and beyond.

Next, the party’s direction and policies. Chen Shui-bian is the DPP’s chief sinner, and yet the party primaries have become a competition among the Four Princes to see who can demonstrate the most unquestioning loyalty toward the party’s chief sinner. This absurd scenario reveals that the DPP primaries had nothing to do with reform or self-introspection, and everything to do with which of the Four Princes would have the honor of being Chen Shui-bian’s chief accomplice, hence designated heir. As for the issue of Taiwan independence, Yu Hsi-kuen, who advocates abolishing the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and champions “de jure Taiwan independence,” had the worst showing in the primaries. Apparently even DPP members consider his agenda a pipe dream. The other three princes, Hsieh, Su, and Lu, continued supporting the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and advocated “making constitutional revisions based on existing constitutional procedures,” a policy that boils down to maintaining the status quo. In which case, aren’t they nothing more than Kuomintang (KMT) fellow travellers? What have they contributed to the Sacred Cause of Taiwan independence? Other debates involved nothing but mutual recriminations over policy flip-flops on the Suhua Freeway and the Losheng Sanatorium. When it came to important policies affecting the nation’s political and economic future, all we were offered were empty boasts about “adopting a global vision” and “ensuring perpetual development.” Because none of the participants were able to give a concrete reason why they had come, the debate turned into attacks upon each others’ character. Su accused Hsieh of being “devious.” Hsieh accused Su of “inconsistencies in policy, inconsistencies in thought.” This inadvertently revealed the real plight of the DPP. The nation is in decline because the character of its leadership is in decline.

The ugly truth that the DPP primaries have laid bare is this: the DPP is a political party whose core value is the lust for power. Its core value is not democratic reform, otherwise it would not have ruled in utter disregard of the law as it has. It is not even Taiwan independence, otherwise it would not have flip-flopped on Taiwan independence and engaged in self-deception and deception of others as it has. The DPP’s core value is naked power lust, otherwise it would not have eagerly abetted the thoroughly corrupt Chen Shui-bian, and consigned the nation to a plight in which democracy and the rule of law have vanished into thin air. The DPP can paint the Pan Blues as “Chi-Com fellow travellers” who “do not love Taiwan.” The DPP can paint Su Tseng-chang as a heretic of the “New Tide Faction,” who is “violating the DPP’s fundamental values.” The DPP can paint Frank Hsieh as a “One China Constitution” advocate even more “pro reunification” than the Chinese Communist Party. Whether such allegations are true or false is irrelevant. What matters is they are useful in one’s struggle for power.

The DPP is using the same tactics it used against the Pan Blues against presidential primary rivals within its own party. Like criminal gangs accustomed to poisoning villagers, who live with poison day in and day out, they have finally poisoned themselves and their families with lethal doses of their own toxins. Following these primaries, power struggles within the DPP have intensified to an unprecedented degree. These worsening power struggles will inevitably leave deep, visible, and permanent scars on the DPP.

Su Tseng-chang said “character is the most important factor in a president.” This party primary has not only exposed the character of the Four Princes, it has also exposed the perverted and decadent character of the DPP as a political party.

Original Chinese below:

《社論》
民進黨初選效應：人格與黨格的沉淪
社論

民進黨總統初選第二場也是最後一場政見會謝幕，就當下情勢來看，已無「協調」空間，初選的程序勢須走到盡頭，辦完黨員投票及民調，始能決定由何人出線代表民進黨競選總統。

初選進行至今，凸顯了兩種現象：一、路線及政策辯論原地打轉，毫無進展及突破；二、黨內派系分裂急遽惡化，幾乎成了敵我鬥爭。

先 談內爭。大約十天以前，似仍存有「初選前兩名正副搭檔」的想像空間。但蘇貞昌幾 度宣示「初選落敗，不當副手」，一方面使初選趨於尖銳，另一方面亦使選後療治裂痕的藥方頓告消失。謝長廷則稱，「不會讓支持者掉淚，初選絕不退讓」，也已 關上了「協調」之門。最可玩味的是，謝長廷又稱：「每個人都想要當總統，但也應有願當副手的雅量。」此話一方面或在揶揄蘇貞昌宣示不當副手，另一方面卻也 許是為謝長廷自己可能出任副手預留餘地。也就是說，初選倘由蘇貞昌勝出競選總統，謝長廷陣營若不容蘇「全碗捧去」，亦不無轉而爭取「蘇謝配」的可能性。謝 的算盤也許是「無魚蝦也好」，但蘇若初選勝出，還會回應謝長廷陣營「蘇謝配」的勒索嗎？反過來說，蘇若初選失敗，且已言明不當副手，難道蘇系真會打脫牙和 血吞？民進黨內的撕裂性鬥爭，恐將由黨內初選延伸影響至正式總統大選，甚至大選以後。

再 談路線。陳水扁是民進黨的大罪人，但初選卻成了四大天王向陳大罪人效忠的競賽。 此種荒謬的場景，凸顯了這場初選完全沒有改革反省的意味，四大天王只是在比賽誰是陳水扁的頭號共犯而已。至於台獨問題，主張廢除「台灣前途決議文」及力挺 「法理台獨」的游錫?，顯然在初選中人氣最差，民進黨人亦視其為白日夢囈而已；其餘謝、蘇、呂三人，皆仍站在「台灣前途決議文」的底線上，並一致主張「應 循現行憲法所定程序進行修憲」，亦即實際上仍主張「維持現狀」；既然如此，他們不啻皆是國民黨的同路人而已，在台獨大業上又豈有一丁點的推進？再看其他方 面的政策辯論，則只聞相互攻訐蘇花高、樂生院的政策反覆；至於國家政經大計，卻只用「放眼全球」、「永續發展」幾句假、大、空話，在點綴場面。於是，正因 政策辯論說不出個所以然來，所以轉而相互攻擊對方的「人格」。蘇說謝「奸巧」，謝說蘇「政策不一致，思想不一貫」；這麼一來，反而揭露了民進黨如今真正的 困境所在：一切國政沉淪的問題，皆出自主政者人格境界沉淪的問題！

初選進行至今所 暴露的政治真相是：民進黨竟是一個以權謀鬥爭為核心價值的政黨。其 核心價值，分明不是民主改革，否則就不會違法亂政至此地步；也不是台獨，否則就不會自欺欺人、反覆搖擺至此地步。民進黨的核心價值只是權謀鬥爭而已，否則 就不會力挺貪腐無狀的陳水扁，亦不會使國家陷於今日民主法治萬般落空的痛苦之中。民進黨可以將「泛藍」打成「中共同路人」、「不愛台灣」；亦可將蘇貞昌打 成「新潮流化」、「違反民進黨基本價值」；謝長廷的「憲法一中」更遭追殺，甚至稱其比中共還要「統派」。這些，是非真偽皆莫辨，只要有利於權謀鬥爭即可。

民 進黨用於對泛藍鬥爭的全套戰法，如今已全盤移用於黨內總統初選的鬥爭。猶如一個 慣常對村人下毒的邪惡集團，由於日日與毒共處，終於自身也中了劇毒，且亦毒害了自己的家族。經過此次初選，民進黨內權謀鬥爭的深化、惡化、毒化及公開化， 皆已超越過去，這必將對民進黨體質的繼續惡化與毒化留下深刻及公開的傷痕，影響久遠。

蘇貞昌說「當總統人格最重要」，經此次黨內初選，不但凸顯了四大天王的「人格」，且亦看出了民進黨「黨格」的畸變與沉淪。

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character

The DPP Primaries reveal the DPP’s Lack of Character
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
April 22, 2007

The “Four Princes of the DPP” (actually One Princess and Three Princes) From left to right: Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Yu Hsi-kuen, Su Tseng-chang

The second Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential primary will also be the party’s final political debate. As matters stand, compromise is impossible. The DPP primary process must end, and the DPP’s presidential candidate can be decided only after a party vote and an opinion poll.

The DPP primary process has underscored two phenomena: First, the party is spinning its wheels. No progress or breakthroughs have been made during the debate over the party’s direction and policies. Second, internal divisions among party factions have worsened, and have become life and death struggles between mortal enemies.

First, the internal divisions. Ten days ago, two presidential and vice presidential tickets still seemed a possibility. But Su Tseng-chang repeatedly declared that “If I lose the primaries, I won’t accept the vice presidency.” On the one hand his declaration sharpened internal divisions. On the other hand, it made healing those divisions impossible. Frank Hsieh, by stating that, “I will not disappoint my supporters, I will not withdraw from the primaries,” also slammed the door shut on compromise. Most intriguing of all was Frank Hsieh’s statement: “Everyone wants to be president. But everyone should have the magnanimity to accept the role of vice president.” On the one hand, this statement chided Su Tseng-chang for insisting that he would not accept the vice presidency. On the other hand it may have been Frank Hsieh’s way of keeping the option of the vice presidency open. In other words, in case Su Tseng-chang wins his bid for the presidential slot in the primaries, the Frank Hsieh camp does not want to watch idly as the winner takes all, but wants to reserve the right to be part of a “Su Hsieh ticket.” Hsieh figures that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if Su wins the primaries, will he still respond to extortionate demands for a “Su Hsieh ticket” from the Frank Hsieh camp? If Su loses in the primaries, having stated that he would not accept the vice presidency, can the Su camp really swallow its pride and eat crow? These divisive struggles within the DPP will probably continue through the presidential election and beyond.

Next, the party’s direction and policies. Chen Shui-bian is the DPP’s chief sinner, and yet the party primaries have become a competition among the Four Princes to see who can demonstrate the most unquestioning loyalty toward the party’s chief sinner. This absurd scenario reveals that the DPP primaries had nothing to do with reform or self-introspection, and everything to do with which of the Four Princes would have the honor of being Chen Shui-bian’s chief accomplice, hence designated heir. As for the issue of Taiwan independence, Yu Hsi-kuen, who advocates abolishing the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and champions “de jure Taiwan independence,” had the worst showing in the primaries. Apparently even DPP members consider his agenda a pipe dream. The other three princes, Hsieh, Su, and Lu, continued supporting the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” and advocated “making constitutional revisions based on existing constitutional procedures,” a policy that boils down to maintaining the status quo. In which case, aren’t they nothing more than Kuomintang (KMT) fellow travellers? What have they contributed to the Sacred Cause of Taiwan independence? Other debates involved nothing but mutual recriminations over policy flip-flops on the Suhua Freeway and the Losheng Sanatorium. When it came to important policies affecting the nation’s political and economic future, all we were offered were empty boasts about “adopting a global vision” and “ensuring perpetual development.” Because none of the participants were able to give a concrete reason why they had come, the debate turned into attacks upon each others’ character. Su accused Hsieh of being “devious.” Hsieh accused Su of “inconsistencies in policy, inconsistencies in thought.” This inadvertently revealed the real plight of the DPP. The nation is in decline because the character of its leadership is in decline.

The ugly truth that the DPP primaries have laid bare is this: the DPP is a political party whose core value is the lust for power. Its core value is not democratic reform, otherwise it would not have ruled in utter disregard of the law as it has. It is not even Taiwan independence, otherwise it would not have flip-flopped on Taiwan independence and engaged in self-deception and deception of others as it has. The DPP’s core value is naked power lust, otherwise it would not have eagerly abetted the thoroughly corrupt Chen Shui-bian, and consigned the nation to a plight in which democracy and the rule of law have vanished into thin air. The DPP can paint the Pan Blues as “Chi-Com fellow travellers” who “do not love Taiwan.” The DPP can paint Su Tseng-chang as a heretic of the “New Tide Faction,” who is “violating the DPP’s fundamental values.” The DPP can paint Frank Hsieh as a “One China Constitution” advocate even more “pro reunification” than the Chinese Communist Party. Whether such allegations are true or false is irrelevant. What matters is they are useful in one’s struggle for power.

The DPP is using the same tactics it used against the Pan Blues against presidential primary rivals within its own party. Like criminal gangs accustomed to poisoning villagers, who live with poison day in and day out, they have finally poisoned themselves and their families with lethal doses of their own toxins. Following these primaries, power struggles within the DPP have intensified to an unprecedented degree. These worsening power struggles will inevitably leave deep, visible, and permanent scars on the DPP.

Su Tseng-chang said “character is the most important factor in a president.” This party primary has not only exposed the character of the Four Princes, it has also exposed the perverted and decadent character of the DPP as a political party.

Original Chinese below:

《社論》
民進黨初選效應：人格與黨格的沉淪
社論

民進黨總統初選第二場也是最後一場政見會謝幕，就當下情勢來看，已無「協調」空間，初選的程序勢須走到盡頭，辦完黨員投票及民調，始能決定由何人出線代表民進黨競選總統。

初選進行至今，凸顯了兩種現象：一、路線及政策辯論原地打轉，毫無進展及突破；二、黨內派系分裂急遽惡化，幾乎成了敵我鬥爭。

先 談內爭。大約十天以前，似仍存有「初選前兩名正副搭檔」的想像空間。但蘇貞昌幾 度宣示「初選落敗，不當副手」，一方面使初選趨於尖銳，另一方面亦使選後療治裂痕的藥方頓告消失。謝長廷則稱，「不會讓支持者掉淚，初選絕不退讓」，也已 關上了「協調」之門。最可玩味的是，謝長廷又稱：「每個人都想要當總統，但也應有願當副手的雅量。」此話一方面或在揶揄蘇貞昌宣示不當副手，另一方面卻也 許是為謝長廷自己可能出任副手預留餘地。也就是說，初選倘由蘇貞昌勝出競選總統，謝長廷陣營若不容蘇「全碗捧去」，亦不無轉而爭取「蘇謝配」的可能性。謝 的算盤也許是「無魚蝦也好」，但蘇若初選勝出，還會回應謝長廷陣營「蘇謝配」的勒索嗎？反過來說，蘇若初選失敗，且已言明不當副手，難道蘇系真會打脫牙和 血吞？民進黨內的撕裂性鬥爭，恐將由黨內初選延伸影響至正式總統大選，甚至大選以後。

再 談路線。陳水扁是民進黨的大罪人，但初選卻成了四大天王向陳大罪人效忠的競賽。 此種荒謬的場景，凸顯了這場初選完全沒有改革反省的意味，四大天王只是在比賽誰是陳水扁的頭號共犯而已。至於台獨問題，主張廢除「台灣前途決議文」及力挺 「法理台獨」的游錫?，顯然在初選中人氣最差，民進黨人亦視其為白日夢囈而已；其餘謝、蘇、呂三人，皆仍站在「台灣前途決議文」的底線上，並一致主張「應 循現行憲法所定程序進行修憲」，亦即實際上仍主張「維持現狀」；既然如此，他們不啻皆是國民黨的同路人而已，在台獨大業上又豈有一丁點的推進？再看其他方 面的政策辯論，則只聞相互攻訐蘇花高、樂生院的政策反覆；至於國家政經大計，卻只用「放眼全球」、「永續發展」幾句假、大、空話，在點綴場面。於是，正因 政策辯論說不出個所以然來，所以轉而相互攻擊對方的「人格」。蘇說謝「奸巧」，謝說蘇「政策不一致，思想不一貫」；這麼一來，反而揭露了民進黨如今真正的 困境所在：一切國政沉淪的問題，皆出自主政者人格境界沉淪的問題！

初選進行至今所 暴露的政治真相是：民進黨竟是一個以權謀鬥爭為核心價值的政黨。其 核心價值，分明不是民主改革，否則就不會違法亂政至此地步；也不是台獨，否則就不會自欺欺人、反覆搖擺至此地步。民進黨的核心價值只是權謀鬥爭而已，否則 就不會力挺貪腐無狀的陳水扁，亦不會使國家陷於今日民主法治萬般落空的痛苦之中。民進黨可以將「泛藍」打成「中共同路人」、「不愛台灣」；亦可將蘇貞昌打 成「新潮流化」、「違反民進黨基本價值」；謝長廷的「憲法一中」更遭追殺，甚至稱其比中共還要「統派」。這些，是非真偽皆莫辨，只要有利於權謀鬥爭即可。

民 進黨用於對泛藍鬥爭的全套戰法，如今已全盤移用於黨內總統初選的鬥爭。猶如一個 慣常對村人下毒的邪惡集團，由於日日與毒共處，終於自身也中了劇毒，且亦毒害了自己的家族。經過此次初選，民進黨內權謀鬥爭的深化、惡化、毒化及公開化， 皆已超越過去，這必將對民進黨體質的繼續惡化與毒化留下深刻及公開的傷痕，影響久遠。

蘇貞昌說「當總統人格最重要」，經此次黨內初選，不但凸顯了四大天王的「人格」，且亦看出了民進黨「黨格」的畸變與沉淪。