Grand Justices must be Defenders of the Republic of China Constitution

Grand Justices must be Defenders of the Republic of China Constitution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 28, 2007

The Legislative Yuan yesterday exercised its power to approve the president’s choices for the Vice President of the Judicial Yuan and eight Grand Justices. Each of the nominees was voted up or down individually, on a “one man, one vote” basis. The result was the Vice President of the Judicial Yuan and four Grand Justices were approved, but four other nominees for Grand Justice were not.

The Council of Grand Justices has 15 members, eight of whose terms overlap the terms of the other seven. Beginning in 2003, eight members began serving four year terms. The other seven began serving eight year terms. When the four year terms of the eight members expire, their replacements will serve eight year terms. Henceforth every four years, half the members (i.e., eight or seven) of the Council of Grand Justices will be replaced. The current personnel replacement is the first of its kind. The system was designed to prevent any single president from nominating the entire Council of Grand Justices. But in fact Chen Shui-bian nominated the first 15 members. And he is now nominating the first eight replacements. Chen Shui-bian is highly controversial. His legitimacy is in serious question. Therefore the nomination and approval process for the Grand Justices, and how they interpret the constitution once they are seated on the bench, will inevitably provoke widespread debate and intense controversy.

The Grand Justices must be Defenders of the Republic of China Constitution. From their lofty perches, the Grand Justices must have a farsighted, visionary understanding of the requirements of Constitutional Republicanism. The Grand Justices must have the moral courage to implement the letter and spirit of the nation’s basic law. Otherwise they don’t deserve their exalted status. The current Council of Grand Justices has left the public deeply disillusioned. Their interpretations of the constitution reflect surrender to political expedience and obedience to political authority.

Consider the following three interpretations of the constitution: 1. The 319 Truth Commission Case, 2. The National Communications Commission (NCC) Case, and 3. The State Affairs Confidential Expense Case. The 319 Shooting Incident cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of Chen Shui-bian’s second term in office. The case was assigned to ordinary law enforcement agencies, including the National Security Bureau, local police, investigators, and prosecutors. Because those suspected of a crime were entrusted to investigate the crime, the public found it impossible to lend any credence to the process. Every day the case remained uninvestigated, was another day Chen Shui-bian remained under suspicion. Obviously this undermined both the legitimacy of his regime and its ability to govern. A special investigative agency established by the Legislature, consisting of both ruling and opposition party members, was the only feasible solution, the only one that stood a chance of gaining the public’s trust. But the DPP chose to stonewall, invoking a non-existent and ludicrous “administrative right of resistance.” After which it demanded a constitutional interpretation. Grand Justices telephoned legislators attempting to exert undue pressure on them. They even attempted to nullify the constitutionally delegated investigative powers of the Legislature, in order to squelch the Truth Commission. The Grand Justices intended to give Chen Shui-bian a helping hand. In fact they merely guaranteed that Chen Shui-bian would never regain any political legitimacy. That his regime would spin its wheels for the next several years, to the detriment of the nation, and even to the detriment of Chen himself. This is mere one example of the Grand Justices’ pusillanimity and myopia under the pressures of realpolitik.

The composition of the NCC is determined differently from other institutions. The reason is governments in recent years have refused to govern in accordance with law. Instead they have manipulated administrative agencies in accordance to their private whims. The opposition parties could no longer allow the Executive Yuan to monopolize the nomination process. They demanded a role for the legislature in determining the composition of the NCC. Given today’s political reality, such demands are eminently reasonable. The Executive Yuan, through the Central Election Commission, illegally linked “referenda,” more accurately referred to as “plebiscites,” with the 2003 presidential election. Yet the Grand Justices turned a blind eye to this unconstitutional behavior. They refused to acknowledge the need for an independent NCC. They hid behind the pretense of “maintaining the separation of powers.” They denied the right of the Legislative Yuan to participate in the process. This is how the Grand Justices rationalize their behavior.

The Grand Justices did not prevent the courts from trying suspects in the State Affairs Confidential Expense Case. What the Grand Justices did instead, was invent a “Executive Secrets Privilege,” and special evidence and evidentiary procedures, providing Chen Shui-bian with a convenient escape clause. They enabled Chen to use secrecy laws to make all evidence and court records that could convict him unavailable, permanently, in perpetuity, thereby achieving the goal of preventing the case from going to trial. The Grand Justices’ “interpretation” of law was tantamount to “making” of law. They were “legislating from the bench.” They were willing to be used by Chen Shui-bian. They were eager to be used by Chen Shui-bian. This is a clear illustration of how the Grand Justices’ behavior has undermined justice in the State Affairs Confidential Expense Case.

The nominees for the next Council of Grand Justices are mired in controversy. The newly approved Grand Justices will be interpreting the constitution at least until the current president’s four years term of office expires. In other words, Grand Justices whom Chen Shui-bian nominated, will interpret the constitution under the next president. The people only can hope that Chen Shui-bian’s constitutional abuses will not spread to future Grand Justices, and undermine the future of constitutional government.

大法官應擔當中華民國憲法的守護者
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.28 03:23 am

立法院昨日行使司法院正副院長及八位大法官同意權，全體被提名人均採「一票一人」個別同意，結果正副院長及四位大法官過關，四位大法官被提名人遭到否決。

這是自九十二年起，大法官採十五人之中八人任期與七人任期交錯制以來（即九十二年大法官八人任期四年，七人任期八年，八人屆滿之後亦改為任期八年，使大法官爾後均每四年半數更替），首次換屆。此制設計目的在於避免大法官均由同一總統提名，但首屆十五人以及此次更換的八人，卻均由陳水扁提名，而陳水扁確是爭議極大、統治正當性備受質疑者，因而大法官的提名及同意，乃至釋憲職權之行使，也連帶受到社會輿論頗多訾議。

大法官是中華民國憲法之守護者；站在這樣的高度，大法官對民主憲政秩序自當有高瞻遠矚的見識，亦應有貫徹憲法精神的道德勇氣，否則即不配享有如此崇高的地位和榮耀。然而，在本屆大法官任內發生的許多重大事件中，大法官釋憲的結果，卻常見屈從於政治現實或統治權力，令國人十分失望。

茲舉三件釋憲為例：三一九真調會釋憲案、ＮＣＣ釋憲案，及國務機要費釋憲案。三一九事件是導致陳水扁第二任期統治正當性動搖的重大事件。此一事件竟交由通常的國家機制如警調、國安機關以及檢察官來處理，由於受調查者正是掌握權力者，較有事實上的困難，且難以獲得社會信任。然若此一事件一日不獲徹底調查，陳水扁即一日受到質疑，此必將影響政府的施政能力與統治正當性。因此，由國會主導設置調查機制，朝野黨派均派員參與，正是唯一可行的、能獲得公信力的調查設計。然而，民進黨政府一方面以自創的「行政抵抗權」杯葛，一方面聲請釋憲；結果，大法官不但有人在立法院審議真調會條例時打電話給立委關說，還作出了自行將真調會侷限於「國會調查權」的解釋，扼殺了真調會。大法官這種行為看似幫了陳水扁的大忙，實際上卻是使陳水扁重獲統治正當性的機會也因而喪失，其政權陷於這幾年來的內耗空轉，於國家及於其個人其實均大大不利。這是大法官懦弱短淺，受到政治現實牽制的一例。

ＮＣＣ的組成方式之所以與一般機關均不相同，背景因素是政府近年來不依法行政的事例罄竹難書，對諸多行政系統內的合議機關竟亦任意操控，立法院在野黨派遂要求ＮＣＣ的組成必須由立法院參與，不能同意由行政院一手控制。這樣的訴求，在今日政治情勢下，是有一定道理的。行政院透過中選會操作公投綁大選，就是一例。然而，大法官對這樣的政治現實卻視而不見，亦不能接受ＮＣＣ的特殊性，一味以形式上的權力分立為由，否定立法院參與的正當性。這是大法官所為解釋侷限性的一例。

至於國務機要費的釋憲案，大法官雖然並未阻止審判；但大法官解釋中，創設所謂總統「機密特權」以及特別的取證程序，後來仍被陳水扁「鑽巧門」，企圖用核定絕對機密、永久保密的方式，封鎖全部證據及筆錄，達到阻止審判的目的。近來大法官釋憲習於「造法」，卻因此被陳水扁利用，甚或甘受陳水扁利用，以致間接影響了國務機要費弊案的審判，亦即影響了正義的實現，此案即是鮮明的例證。

如今，下屆大法官在爭議中產生了新的人選。新任的大法官將要擔任釋憲工作，至少到下任總統的四年任期屆滿為止。換言之，將是陳水扁提名的大法官，要在新的總統治下行使釋憲職權。國人只能期望陳水扁毀憲玩法的惡劣風氣，不要感染到未來的大法官，亦不要繼續汙染傷害未來的憲政。

How many More Times do We need to Play these Word Games?

How many More Times do We need to Play these Word Games?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2007

President Chen Shui-bian has modified the wording of the Democratic Progressive Party’s “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” On September 30, the DPP National Congress will retain Chen’s version of the resolution. It will not replace it with Yu’s version. In remarkably short order, the DPP has resolved its tempest in a teapot. It now has an officially sanctioned version it can present to the US, to Taiwan independence organizations, and to indicted Chairman Yu Hsi-kuen, who has been forced to resign over the Discretionary Fund case. The DPP may be committed to Taiwan independence, and it may be determined to engage in reckless brinksmanship. But how many such games must it play before it becomes a responsible ruling party?

This is reminiscent of how Chen Shui-bian got rid of the Resolution on Taiwan’s Future. Chen replaced the language of the resolution with radical Taiwan independence rhetoric. The new wording asserted that Taiwan was already a sovereign and independent country. It asserted that any changes required a plebiscite by the entire population of the country. This time is no different. Internal and external factors, as well as election considerations, have forced pro-independence factions to tone down Yu’s version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation. The toned down version remains within the bounds established by the Resolution on Taiwan’s Future. It remains within the bounds established by the DPP’s document “The Founding of a Republic of Taiwan.” Yu Hsi-kuen acquiesced with a smile. His response reflected the Democratic Progressive Party’s recognition of reality.

The new version “acknowledges that the name Republic of China is difficult to use in international society.” It does not deny that the name of the nation is the Republic of China. It advocates joining international organizations under the name of Taiwan. It advocates “swiftly completing the rectification of names, the authoring of a new new constitution, the holding of a plebiscite, demonstrating that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation.” It quietly avoids such sensitive topics such as “the rectification of the name of the nation to Taiwan.” In the new version, the “rectification of names” is not directly linked to the “change in the name of the nation.” Plebiscites are not directly linked to Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian is playing word games. He is allowing Taiwan independence zealots to imagine they had gotten what they demanded. But what they got was imaginary.

Are such imaginary victories enough for pro-independence elements? In 1999, the DPP’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” softened the rhetoric of its “Taiwan Independence Party Constitution.” This allowed the DPP to win the 2000 Presidential Election. This allowed a party that repudiates the existence of the Republic of China to become the ruling party of the Republic of China, under the ageis of the Constitution of the Republic of China. Like it or not, DPP party members cannot deny that they once were, or still are, officials of the Republic of China.

The problem is the DPP is acutely aware of the impact of such variables on electoral success and failure, including changes to their Taiwan independence Party Constitution. What the DPP has never been able to come to grips with is that it is already the ruling party, that it is in charge of the nation, that it has been in power for over seven years. The DPP constantly waffles. It denies the legitimacy of the nation for which it has already officially assumed responsibility. The legitimacy of the Republic of China is treated as a punching bag. Every so often the DPP must give it a punch, usually when an election rolls around. Taiwan, as fate would have it, has no shortage of elections. This idiosyncracy means the ruling DPP government will remain forever subject to political interference.

Following regime change, the DPP, motivated by its anti-nuclear ideology, halted construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant. This decision, unrelated to the issue of reunification vs. independence, resulted in the DPP getting off to a shaky start. This state of affairs persisted for several years. It was followed by endless “rectification of names” controversies, “authoring of a new constitution” controversies, “changing the name of the nation” controversies. Every controversy shook the market. Domestically, economic development was held hostage. Internationally, diplomatic relations became progressively more difficult. Forget Taipei/Washington relations. Even normal diplomatic relations became increasingly arduous.

Viewed positively, Chen’s version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation finally acknowledges the international pressure. Chen mobilized pro-independence organizations to march in favor of the “rectification of names.” But he pragmatically limited it to domestic consumption. Take the DPP’s campaign theme for 2008 for example. Its “Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name Taiwan” does not involve authoring a new constitution or changing the name of the nation.

Let’s not worry about whether such concessions will mollify the US. The question is, will they mollify voters who have already endured over seven years of ideologically motivated DPP misrule? The DPP was founded 21 years ago. It has been in office for over seven years. How many more years will it be before it realizes enough is enough? Confronted with a crisis, the DPP gladly accepted Chen’s version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation. This temporarily relieved the election crisis for DPP presidential and vice presidential candidates Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang. But what about after the election? Hsieh and Su are different from Chen. They announced their candidacy after Chen was already in power for over than seven years. They face more serious problems than Chen. If Hsieh and Su are elected, will Taiwan have to endure eight more years of endless amendments to the constitution; of endless threats to author a new constitution, rectify names, and change the name of the nation; of endless controversy and agitation?

Yu’s version of the Resolution for a Normal Nation was a “UXB,” an unexploded bomb. That Chen and Hsieh joined hands to defeat it is no doubt cause for rejoicing. But how many more UXBs remain? A responsible ruling party, a responsible leader, a political leader preparing to compete for the nation’s highest office, really ought to consider the well-being the people. They really shouldn’t be wasting time and energy playing meaningless but dangerous word games.

Courtesy the China Times.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.09.27
這種「決議文」的文字震盪遊戲還要玩幾回？
中時社論

　不論是對美國交代、對獨派交代、或者對因特別費遭起訴請辭的黨主席游錫？交代，民進黨在陳水扁總統出手整合並調整文字後，確認九三○全代會不再有所謂的「游版正常國家決議文」，取而代之的是「扁版正常國家決議文」，在極短時間中，化解一場民進黨茶壺裡的風暴，問題是，做為一個台獨意識如此堅定，一而再、再而三向統獨紅線挑戰的政黨，還要玩多少次這樣的把戲，才能真正成為負責任的執政黨？

　一如當年陳水扁出手調整台灣前途決議文，將激進的台獨主張，以文字微調，承認台灣已是主權獨立國家，所有有關獨立現狀的更動，都須全體住民以公民投票方式決定；這一回又是在內外形勢與選舉考量下，將獨派堅持的「游版決議文」再做文字微調，而調整之後的文字，既未超過台灣前途決議文，更未超過建黨時明確標舉「建立台灣共和國」的黨綱，游錫？最後含笑接受，反應的是民進黨認知現實的基本性格。

　在這份新版決議文中，「體認中華民國這個國號已很難在國際社會使用」，但卻未否認中華民國現有國號這個事實；進一步主張以台灣名義加入國際組織，「早日完成台灣正名，制定新憲法，在適當時機舉行公民投票，以彰顯台灣為主權獨立的國家。」但含蓄地化解了「國家（或國號）應正名為台灣」的敏感話題，在上述文字中，正名並未與改國號直接掛鉤、公投並未直接與台獨掛鉤，某種程度可以說，陳水扁又玩了一次文字遊戲，讓所有台獨的想像在此中得到滿足，但所有的想像只能是想像。

　這樣的想像對獨派人士是否就足夠了呢？一九九九年，台灣前途決議文緩和了台獨黨綱的激進本質，讓民進黨贏得二千年總統大選，讓一個否定中華民國的政黨，從而成為在中華民國憲法下宣誓就職的政府，不論民進黨人是否歡喜甘願，他們無法否認自己曾經或還是中華民國的政務官。

　麻煩的是，民進黨永遠可以敏感的知覺選舉成敗的各種變數，包括他們得微調台獨黨綱；但民進黨卻始終無法調適或相信自己已經是一個執政黨，是統籌國是的政府，執政七年多，民進黨反反覆覆地挑戰他們已經進入的這個國家：中華民國體制的正當性，就像打擺子般，時不時就得來一次，發作時間又經常性地與選舉連結，偏偏台灣就是不缺選舉，這個莫名其妙的特性，讓民進黨政府的政策永遠受到政治因素的嚴重干擾。

　政黨輪替之初，民進黨因為廢核的神主牌，硬是停建核四，這個無涉統獨的一項政策作為，已經讓民進黨執政跨出步履蹣跚的第一步，讓接續的幾年始終搖搖擺擺；再加上接下來不斷出現的正名、制憲、改國號等政治爭議，每一次爭議在內就是造成市場震盪，經濟發展始終因此受困；在外就是對外關係愈漸艱難，台美關係不用說了，連正常邦交都愈見費力。

　這一次「扁版決議文」出爐，從好的一方面看，是陳水扁終於體會到國際壓力，務實地將概括於台灣正名之下的所有社會動員，調整框限於內部消費之用：就是一個民進黨打二○○八年選戰的主軸吧，這個主軸是以入聯公投為核心，無涉制憲改國號。

　這樣的調整，能否說服美國姑且不論，問題是，已經忍受七多年意識形態治國的中間選民能被說服嗎？建黨廿一年、執政七年多的民進黨，還要搞多少年才肯罷休？刻正焦頭爛額拚搏大選的民進黨正副總統參選人謝長廷和蘇貞昌，理應欣然接受「扁版決議文」，為他們化解了暫時的選舉危機，但是，大選之後呢？謝蘇和扁不同的是，他們的參選是在扁執政七年多之後，他們會比扁面對更深一層的問題：謝蘇若當選，台灣社會是否還要再來一趟八年，反反覆覆陷入修制憲正名改國號的爭議與震盪？

　扁謝聯手拆解「游版決議文」這個未爆彈，一場風波消弭於無形固然值得慶幸，但更重要的是，台灣的未爆彈到底拆解了沒有？做為負責任的執政黨、負責任的領導人、準備競逐國家大位的政治領袖，真的要為台灣想想，在這些毫無意義卻製造緊張的文字遊戲上，還要虛耗多少時間與精力！

To Win the Center, Pacify the Deep Greens

To Win the Center, Pacify the Deep Greens
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 26, 2007

While Ma Ying-jeou is aggressively courting “native” as well as “nativist” voters, Frank Hsieh is playing the “cross Straits” card. Many of the positions Hsieh has advocated over the past two or three years have disappeared from the Green camp’s agenda. These include direct air links and opening the island to mainland capital. Frank Hsieh stressed that he wanted to “do everything in his power to seek dialogue and the negotiations, in order to promote peace in the Taiwan Straits.” It is hard to imagine what would have happened if Hsieh had proposed such positions, which amount to heresy with today’s Green camp, during the Democratic Progressive Party presidential primaries?

Frank Hsieh is obviously appealing to centrist voters. But many centrist voters probably want to ask Frank Hsieh a simple question: Your position makes sense. But have you explained it to Deep Green True Believers? Have you explained it to those voters who took to the streets demanding a “Plebiscite to Join the UN?” To those pro independence organizations who met Chairman Yu Hsi-kuen at the airport? To those pirate radio stations that denounced the “11 Brigands” and “Zhong Guo Qin?” Do they support direct flights? Do they welcome mainland capital?

Hsieh’s problem isn’t how to appeal to centrist voters. His problem is how to persuade Deep Green voters, how to obtain their understanding and endorsement. His problem is how to reconcile his cross Straits direct links proposals with Deep Green “nativist” doctrine. His problem is how to prove that his positions are not typical election promises to be forgotten overnight. Hsieh should realize that Ma Ying-jeou can deliver on this promise. But isn’t it strange that over the past seven years, Chen Shui-bian couldn’t?

Kuomintang spokesperson Su Chun-pin put his finger on the issue: “It is not possible for Frank Hsieh to be a more enthusiastic advocate of a ‘new centrist path’ today than Chen was seven years ago,” What’s more, Chen Shui-bian didn’t promote his cross Straits policy only seven years ago, during his “new centrist path” phase. He promoted it several years in a row, during New Year’s Day addresses, during Lunar New Year’s Eve talks, during National Day addresses. But to what result? The closer Chen gets to stepping down, the more he has become a trouble-maker in the eyes of Washington and Beijing, someone who is promoting “unilateral changes to the status quo.” This proves that Chen Shui-bian’s campaign pledges were mere electioneering, to be forgotten as soon as he attained office. Therefore what reason do centrist voters have to believe that Frank Hsieh will do what A Bian didn’t?

True, Frank Hsieh is not Chen Shui-bian. With his “One China Constitution,” “reconciliation and coexistence,” and “cross Straits direct links,” Frank Hsieh has long maintained a safe distance between himself and Chen Shui-bian on cross Straits policy. His path differs in many respects with the orthodox Green path. That is why Frank Hsieh has more maneuvering room than the other Green Princes. The problem is Chen Shui-bian has hijacked the Green camp. He controls the power and influence of its many factions. Not one of them is able to make the slightest progress on cross Straits policy. They have even begun backpedaling. Frank Hsieh has yet to get his own house in order. How can he reconcile his cross Straits direct links proposals with those of Party Chairman Yu, nativist organizations, and pirate radio stations? With the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” President Chen has been advocating? With the aggressive promotion of “Resolution for a Normal Nation?” Many people harbor serious doubts. Hsieh had better convince them first.

To reconcile the differences between his proposals and current reality to the public at large is not going to be easy. Don’t forget how Frank Hsieh practiced “reconciliation and coexistence” when he held the position of premier. Nobody doubted Frank Hsieh’s sincerity. But Government Information Office Chief Yao Wen-chih single-handedly destroyed any possibility of “reconciliation and coexistence” betwen the government and the public. Yet Hsieh allowed Yao and the GIO to become the focus of Blue vs. Green conflict. Many legislators flying Hsieh’s banner do not flinch from the coarsest possible language during factional infighting. It is hard to reconcile such behavior with “reconciliation and coexistence.” Based on such experiences, not only must Frank Hsieh prove his sincerity vis a vis his cross Straits direct links proposal. He must also prove his sincerity vis a vis his desire to form a “coalition government” after the election. He can’t just talk about it.

Frank Hsieh’s situation today is completely different from Chen Shui-bian’s situation yesterday, when Chen proposed his “new centrist path” Back then Chen Shui-bian did not have to deal with opposition from Green Princes within the party. Today Frank Hsieh must contend with reactions from the Yu Hsi-kuen faction, which is promoting its “Resolution for a Normal Nation.” He also must contend with Chen Shui-bian’s “Plebiscite to Join the UN” movement. He must smooth over the reaction from the Yu faction. Otherwise toward the end of September, a newly resigned Yu Hsi-kuen is not about to let matters rest. Hsieh must continue deferring to Chen Shui-bian, who is about to assume control of the party machine. A president who has monopolized the resources of both the party and the government, is also a president who has no desire to become a lame duck before it’s time. When the time comes, and Chen Shui-bian insists on promoting his “Plebiscite to Join the UN” that will become Frank Hsieh’s campaign theme. So the question is: Will Frank Hsieh, who advocates direct flights and the influx of mainland capital, have any room left to maneuver?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.09.26
要爭取中間選民，先擺平深綠板塊吧！
中時社論

　 就在馬英九積極經營本土票源的同時，謝長廷也積極打出了他的「兩岸牌」，許多主張在最近兩、三年的綠營論述中已近乎絕跡，如開放直航、如開放陸資登台等， 謝長廷同時強調他要「盡最大努力尋求對話與談判，以便讓台海和平」。很難想像這種在當前綠營近乎「異端」的論述，如果選在民進黨總統黨內初選階段時提出， 會是個什麼光景？

　誰都看得出來，謝長廷此刻的出招，意在召喚中間選民。但多數中間選民或許也會向謝長廷回問一句很簡單的問題：你的主張 確有道理，但請問你與所有深綠支持者都溝通好了嗎？特別是，那些上街相挺「公投入聯」的選民，那些到機場迎接游主席的獨派團體，以及那些曾經用力聲討「十 一寇」、「中國琴」的地下電台等，他們今天都已經口徑一致的支持直航？歡迎陸資？

　所以問題的重點也出來了，謝長廷有關兩岸開放論述的著 力點，根本不是要怎麼去向中間選民「訴求」，而是要怎麼去向深綠選民「說服」，取得這些選民的諒解與認同，讓他的兩岸開放論述與深綠的本土論述可以整合， 如此才能證明他的所有這些主張，並不是曇花一現的選舉語言。要知道這一點馬英九是絕對做不到的。但同樣弔詭的是過去七年多，陳水扁也一樣沒做到，不是嗎？

　 國民黨發言人蘇俊賓的一句話點到了核心：「今天的謝長廷不會比七年前的陳水扁更主張中間路線」；更有甚者，陳水扁有關兩岸開放的論述，並不只在他七年前的 「新中間路線」中揭示過，更在數年中的元旦講話、除夕談話、國慶祝詞等多次重申過。結果呢？越是到任期屆滿前，陳水扁越是將自己變成為美、中眼中意圖「片 面改變現狀」的「麻煩製造者」，證明當年陳水扁的所有政見、承諾與保證，都是用過即丟的選舉語言。那麼有什麼理由要中間選民相信，當年阿扁說到沒做到的， 謝長廷就一定能說到做到！

　沒錯，謝長廷不是陳水扁，從「憲法一中」、「和解共生」到「兩岸開放」，謝長廷一路走來的政策路線，與陳水扁 一直維持著安全距離，與綠營的正統路線相較也多了些許異質性，這也是謝長廷相較於其他綠天王有更大彈性遊走空間的原因。問題是，以陳水扁昔日在綠營曾凌駕 一切派系權勢的影響力，都無法在兩岸政策開放上推進任何一步，甚至還走回頭路，謝長廷目前連內部整合都尚待努力，他要怎麼向各方證明：我的兩岸開放論述， 就是目前正在主導「公投入聯」的陳總統主張，也是力推「正常國家決議文」，即將卸任的游主席之主張，更是那些本土社團與地下電台的主張？如果這一部分還有 疑慮，那麼就請先說服他們吧！

　要化解這種主張與實踐之間的矛盾，並不是件容易的工作。還記得謝長廷在擔任閣揆期間，曾怎麼落實他的「和 解共生」主張？沒有人懷疑那時節謝長廷的誠意，但當時的內閣團隊中，僅一個新聞局長姚文智就幾乎摧毀了整個朝野「和解共生」氛圍，但謝卻聽任其成為藍綠衝 突的焦點。而掛著謝系招牌的多位立委，在發動黨派攻擊時所用政治語言之粗鄙、不留餘地，真的很難讓人與和解共生聯想在一起。從這個經驗被喚起，謝長廷不僅 對他的兩岸開放論述，甚至他表示在當選後要成立「聯合政府」的倡儀，都得要花更多的工夫證明，這一切並不只是說說而已。

　要知道，現時的 謝長廷，與當年倡議「新中間路線」的陳水扁相較，處境完全不同；當年陳水扁在黨內可沒有任何天王在前後掣肘，如今的謝長廷，要面對游系黨機器所推動的「正 常國家決議文」的反撲，又要應付陳水扁主導的「公投入聯」運動。他必須撫平游系的反彈，否則九月底後卸任的游錫？不會與他善罷干休；他必須持續尊重即將接 掌黨機器的陳水扁，一個即將黨政資源一把抓的總統，也是一個不想太早跛腳的總統。如果屆時陳水扁堅持推動「公投入聯」才該是謝長廷唯一的競選主軸，試問謝 長廷此刻所揭示的直航與開放陸資等主張，還有任何發揮的空間嗎？

Promoting Plebiscites vs. Growing the Economy

Promoting Plebiscites vs. Growing the Economy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 20, 2007

While receiving Taiwan business representatives the other day, Chen Shui-bian criticized a Blue Camp television advertisement. In this Kuomintang produced ad, a Korean businessperson criticizes Taiwan, saying it has become too politicized, and that the government has neglected the economy. He says that Taiwan’s competitiveness is the lowest among the four Asian dragons. In fact, he says, Taiwan no longer qualifies as an Asian dragon. In response to this ad, President Chen cited economic growth rates, consumer price indices, unemployment rates, and the reactions of global economic fora. He said the data proved that Taiwan’s economic performance was actually better than South Korea’s. Therefore the Blue Camp ad was a typical case of “Poormouthing Taiwan.”

Over the past year, President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly contradicted himself. His public remarks have been riddled with internal contradictions. People have become so accustomed to his doubletalk, they no longer consider it noteworthy. Even Uncle Sam considers him a headache. Many people tune him out in order to spare themselves the frustration. But when A Bian gushes about Taiwan’s economy in such glowing terms, and dismisses anyone who complains as “Poormouthing Taiwan,” we have no choice but to respond.

When appraising a nation’s economy, one usually relies on certain economic indicators. These include GDP growth rates, price indices, unemployment rates, and consumer confidence indices. If one wishes to examine an economy in greater detail, one must include consumer spending, investment outlays, and exports. Only then can one discern the significance of the numbers. As everyone knows, the numbers for Taiwan’s GDP growth over the past few years don’t look that bad. But most of that growth was derived from exports. Domestic consumption and investment growth were extremely low. Fourth quarter investment grew slightly last year. But compared to growth in the distant past, the discrepancy was huge. Let’s look at the unemployment figures. What’s behind these numbers? To what extent do Taiwan’s numbers reflect the Executive Yuan’s artificial stimulus packages? This needs clarification. Unemployed workers hired by the government and assigned to data entry or spraying insecticide to prevent Dengue fever are “employed” in the short-term. But long-term their inclusion in the ranks of the employed is fraudulent.

If we really want to diagnose Taiwan’s economic health, we must look at all the data, not just those that catch the eye but whose significance is dubious. Taiwan’s economic growth is concentrated on export sales. Domestic consumer spending and investment is clearly in decline. This reflects serious problems. Why do Taiwan’s consumers lack confidence? Even if Taiwan’s wage inequality is less serious than South Korea’s, why has it suddenly worsened in recent years? What is the potential risk when Taiwan’s GDP growth depends solely on exports? Why are domestic and foreign enterprises unwilling to list on the TAIEX, but instead opt for Hong Kong or Singapore? Why is Taiwan’s financial market unable to make the world’s top 100 list? Once the ASEAN plus Three free trade region takes shape, what will happen to Taiwan’s export dependent economic engine? If this single engine falters, how can Taiwan’s economy continue to fly? These are hidden concerns beyond the one-sided data President Chen cited. If people voice doubts, whether they are South Korean or African, the government should graciously respond “Thank you.” If it reflexively rejects all dissent as “Poormouthing Taiwan,” or lashes back with the accusation “You don’t love Taiwan,” then it is acting remarkably like a fascist regime.

Over the past two weeks, this newspaper has issued special editions investigating Taiwan’s prospects. On September 10 we pointed out that it is natural for Taiwan to want to build its own brand. It is natural for Taiwan to want to seize the initiative and get a leg up in the knowledge economy. But a brand cannot be disconnected from it means of production upstream or its markets downstream. Therefore brand building must be international in nature. That was the theme of our September 17 edition. Take Acer as an example. It must set up production in the most suitable location in the world. It must take advantage of every opportunity to market its products to every corner of the globe. Only then can it become a great brand. If the government forbids a business to shift its production to certain locales, or market its products to certain regions, even if its restrictions seem minor, it will impose an intolerable burden on a business’s brand strategy. For Taiwan’s economy it amounts to a knife through the heart.

The Democratic Progressive Party has been in power for over seven years. Has it has been a benefit or a detriment to Taiwan businesses? Don’t bother dredging up economic statistics. Just look at all the businesses leaving in droves, and the market mired in recession. If economic problems weren’t so difficult to solve, why would A Bian bother provoking Uncle Sam with his meaningless “Plebiscite to Join the UN?” After seven years in power, all the DPP can do is demagogue the “nativization, rectification of names” issue. Is this not an open admission that economic issues are too difficult and painful for the government to tackle?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.09.20
辦公投與拚經濟：虛實之間的取捨
中時社論

　陳水扁總統日前在接見台商代表時，提出他對藍營某一件電視廣告內容的批評。在該件國民黨製作的廣告中，某一位韓籍商人透過口述指台灣最近幾年政治議題太多，而政府整體之經濟建設不力，以致於台灣在競爭力方面落在亞洲四小龍之後，甚至是掉落在龍群之外。對於這樣的批評，陳總統則以經濟成長率、物價指數、失業率、世界經濟論壇等總體指標作回應。他認為這些數據都顯示台灣經濟表現其實優於韓國，所以藍營的廣告是標準的「唱衰台灣」。

　在過去一年中，陳水扁總統前後不一、內容矛盾的發言所在多有，各界都已經見怪不怪。對於這樣一位連老美都感到頭疼的總統，許多人民原本對其言論都寧願視而不言，以免自尋煩惱。但是阿扁把台灣經濟講得「甲勇」，更把對台灣經濟有意見的人描述為唱衰台灣，我們就不得不加以評論了。

　評估一個國家經濟的好壞，一般常以若干經濟指標做基礎，包括ＧＤＰ成長率、物價指數、失業率、消費者信心指數等。如果要再細分細看，則ＧＤＰ成長率之中又包含民間消費、投資支出與出口等項目，分別可以探討其個別數據的意義。如所周知，過去幾年台灣的ＧＤＰ成長在數字上看還不算差，但是絕大多數的成長率都是來自於出口，而國內消費與投資的成長卻是非常低。即使是去年第四季投資成長小有提升，但是與早年動輒兩位數相比，還是有天壤之別。再以失業率的數據來看，台灣的數字背後究竟有多少是來自於行政院促進就業方案的浮面刺激，也有待釐清。如果有失業人口被政府雇去輸入電腦資料或噴灑登革熱藥水，他們短期會被歸為就業，但就中長期而言，這些就業人口絕對是虛假的數字。

　我們要強調的是，如果真的要分析台灣經濟的體質好不好、衰不衰，就要把各種統計數據全部攤開來看，而不是只抓少數亮眼的、意義不足的、在年份上截頭去尾的數字來討論。當台灣經濟成長集中在外銷且國內消費投資明顯衰退時，它當然反映一些嚴重的問題。為什麼台灣消費者信心不足？即使台灣的所得分配不均目前仍較韓國為優，為什麼最近幾年在急劇地惡化？當台灣以出口單一引擎勉力支撐ＧＤＰ成長時，會有什麼潛在的風險？為什麼國內外企業都不願意在台灣掛牌上市，而選擇香港、新加坡？為什麼國際上將台灣金融環境排到世界百名以外？一旦東協加三自由貿易區成型，會不會衝擊到台灣的出口引擎？如果單一引擎受損，台灣的經濟要怎麼飛？凡此種種，都是在陳總統所引片面數據之外的隱憂。如果有人提出疑慮，不論講話的人是韓國人或非洲人，政府都該感謝雅言才是。如果對於異音就打為「唱衰台灣」之輩，再加上「不愛台灣」的隱喻，這就像是法西斯作為了。

　在過去兩周，本報系都以專刊的方式探索台灣的希望。在九月十日我們指出，台灣當然希望建立品牌，俾能在知識經濟時代掌握先機與優勢。但是品牌無論如何不能脫離上游的生產與下游的市場，因此品牌的建立，必須要以貼近國際為前提，這也是本報九月十七日的探討主題。就以宏碁為例吧，它必須在全世界最適合代工的地方生產、以各種行銷方式銷售到全世界最有機會的每一個角落，才可能成就宏碁品牌。反過來說，如果政府不准企業去特定地點生產銷售、或是訂下種種不合理的運輸限制，即使只是一小部分的拘束，對企業的品牌策略都是難以承受之重，對於台灣經濟則是錐心刺骨之痛。

　民進黨執政七年多來，對台灣企業的全球布局是利是弊，也許我們不必拘泥經濟數字，只要看看廠商出走與上市上櫃的蕭條，就已經一葉知秋。坦白說，如果不是經濟議題難以著力，阿扁又何必去炒作一個惹怒老美、虛無空泛的入聯公投呢？如果七年執政下來，就只能炒「本土、正名」這一道虛菜，這不是恰好驗證了其他經濟議題的沉痛與不堪了嗎？

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2007

On September 15, the day of the “March to Join the UN,” Chen Shui-bian boasted that “everyone in the Chen family able to walk” had showed up. His sons and daughters, and his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law formed a veritable phalanx. His grandson Chao Yi-an and Chao Yi-ting became the focus of media attention.

Little An An in particular became a media darling. Every time television anchors mentioned him, their faces revealed a mixture of affection and pity. Chen Shui-bian had been up to his neck in scandals. Now, riding the wave of the “Plebiscite to Join the UN,” he was suddenly “Standing Tall.”

We have no idea what sort of advanced classes Chen family elders have been providing Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six. But based on Chao Yi-an’s age, he probably doesn’t understand the fact and fiction behind the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” He merrily waved a Green flag, turned to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh beside him and asked: “What’s this (Plebiscite to Join the UN) sticker for?”

The adults nearby laughed at little An An’s question. Nobody bothered giving him a serious explanation. But one day, 10, 20, even 30 years from now, an intellectually mature Chao Yi-an may confront the reality of Taiwan. He may recall the march his elders took him on, and find the answer he was seeking!

But until that day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, can the Taiwan independence movement’s “rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution” be considered a success? Will a “Nation of Taiwan” exist? Or will Taiwan be thoroughly marginalized and suffocated? Will Taiwan and mainland China establish a win/win framework for their mutual benefit? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian become the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Or will he become Taiwan’s Public Enemy, responsible for Taiwan’s destruction and decline? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian, his grandmother Wu Shu-cheng, his paternal grandfather Chao Yu-chu, and his father Chao Chien-min, be found not guilty? Or will they be convicts serving time for corruption?

During political marches, whether Blue or Green, children are invariably the focus of media attention. The innocence of little children always provides such a striking contrast with the dark underbelly of politics. Other children may be nothing more than the rank and file of a Blue Army or Green Army. But Chao Yi-an as “First Grandson” has been branded for life. By the time he becomes an adult, will Chao Yi-an be an honored citizen of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Will he be proud of his grandfather’s meritorious service and this historic event? Will he have departed for distant shores? Will he look back at a marginalized, crumbling Taiwan? Will he consider his family background and this event something to be ashamed of?

Chen Shui-bian desperately hopes to change history’s appraisal of him from “corrupt kleptocrat” to “champion of independence.” Everyone in the Chen family able to walk took to the streets, raising the banner of Taiwan independence. Their real purpose was to use the occasion to jettison the image of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, an unethical Chen Shui-bian. But will waving a magic wand made in Taiwan in fact transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence?

Who can tell Chao Yi-an the purpose of this “March for a Plebiscite to Join the UN?” Should we tell him what Chen Shui-bian said? That “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started.” After all, when Chen Shui-bian said “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started,” he meant that when the march was over, there would still be no “Nation of Taiwan,” there would still be no change in the name of the country, and there would still be no UN membership. What we really want to know is, what’s going to happen to the corrupt Chen family? Nothing? What about Chen Shui-bian’s rampant misrule, which has precipitated a national disaster? Is it too merely going to end up where it started?

On September 15, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will stick up for Chen Shui-bian. But Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six, might not. They may be able to dress him up in a green “Taiwan for UN” T-shirt. But they won’t be able to stop him from asking “What’s this for?” For that matter, do the hundreds of thousands of adults whom Chen Shui-bian has led into the streets by the nose truly understand what the march if for? For whom they are marching? Are they really marching to found a “Nation of Taiwan?” Does founding a “Nation of Taiwan” mean that one “loves Taiwan? Or is Chen Shui-bian merely using them? Are they merely helping “Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat” turn himself into “Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence?”

When Chao Yi-an grows up and becomes aware of his family’s reputation, what will he make of his grandfather’s misrule and his grandmother’s corruption? What will he make of his father and paternal grandfather’s conspiratorial relationship with the First Family? What will be make of his mother Chen Hsing-yu’s public falling out with her father-in-law? Will he think of Taiwan independence as “saving Taiwan, loving Taiwan?” Or will he think or Taiwan independence as “deception of oneself, and deception of others?” When the time comes Chao Yi-an to find an answer, questions will abound, and they won’t be confined to “What’s this sticker for?”

Chen Shui-bian may be able to fool his followers and supporters part of the time. But he prorbably won’t be able to fool Chao YI-an for another 10, 20, 30 years.

Some day, Chen Shui-bian will either be known as the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan,” or as the con artist and criminal responsible for Taiwan’s disintegration. On that day, we will have our answer. Until that day, if Chao Yi-an asks “What’s this for?” he may be asking in vain.

趙翊安問：這個貼紙是做什麼的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.19 02:51 am

九一五入聯公投大遊行，如陳水扁所說，他們一家「能走路的」都去了。子女媳婿一列排開，金孫趙翊安與趙翊廷尤其成為電視鏡頭的焦點。

小安安更是媒體寵兒，電視主播一說到他，都嘴角含笑，眉露愛憐。藉著入聯公投噴發的氣勢，一度陷於貪腐陰霾的陳水扁一家，儼然又「堂堂正正」地站出來了！

不知陳家長輩對不滿六歲的趙翊安曾作何種「行前教育」？但以趙翊安的年歲，大概不太容易瞭解「入聯公投」的是非真偽，難怪他一面興奮地搖著綠旗，一面仰頭問身邊的謝長廷：「這個（入聯公投）貼紙是做什麼的？」

當時，他身邊的成人們被小安安逗得相視哄笑，當然沒有人會認真去解釋他的疑惑。不過，總有那麼一天，十年後、二十年後，或三十年後，當心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安面對十、二十、三十年後的台灣，他或許會回想到當年由家中長輩帶去參加的這場大遊行，屆時他也許就會找到他自己的答案！

到了那一天，十年、二十年、三十年後，台灣正名制憲成功了嗎？台灣國建立了嗎？或台灣已徹底邊緣化而奄奄一息？或台灣與中國大陸建立了雙贏互惠的互動架構？到了那一天，趙翊安的外公陳水扁將是台灣國的國父，或將是使台灣撕裂而趨向敗亡的台灣大罪人？趙翊安的外公陳水扁、外婆吳淑珍、爺爺趙玉柱及父親趙建銘，是被證實無罪無辜，或是正在服刑或刑期已滿的貪汙犯？

在政治遊行場合，無論藍綠，兒童皆是鏡頭焦點；因為，童稚的天真，與陰晦的政治極易呈現強烈的對比。然而，其他的兒童或許只是遊行隊伍中的驚鴻一瞥，但趙翊安「第一金孫」的身世卻是他終身的烙印。待他成人後，趙翊安將是身處光榮的台灣國的領土之上，而以父祖的功勳及這場大遊行為榮？或屆時他已旅寄海外，遙望著邊緣化、甚或敗亡的台灣，而以父祖的罪孽及這場大遊行為羞恥憾恨？

陳水扁亟欲將「貪腐的道德評價」，操作轉變成「台獨的道德評價」。當陳家「能走路的」都走上街頭，標舉著「台獨的道德」，他們是欲藉此甩掉應對「貪腐的道德評價」所負的責任。貪腐的陳水扁，不道德的陳水扁，難道就此搖身一變成為台獨的陳水扁，道德的陳水扁？

誰能告訴趙翊安，為何要舉行這場「入聯公投大遊行」？難道要以陳水扁所說的回答他：只是為了「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」而遊行？何況，陳水扁所說的「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」，只是指最後還是沒有台灣國，沒有改國號，沒有入聯；但是，難道經過這次遊行，陳水扁一家的貪腐也就「什麼事都不曾發生」，陳水扁失政敗德所造成的國災民禍也能「一切皆回到原點」？

九一五，即使十數萬遊行者皆為陳水扁背書，但不滿六歲的趙翊安恐怕不能。因為，他雖被人穿上入聯的「青蛙Ｔ恤」，卻不解地問：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」何況，那些跟著陳水扁上街的十數萬成人，難道真正明白他們為何遊行？為誰遊行？難道真是為了建立台灣國？難道建立台灣國又真是愛台灣？又難道只是被陳水扁欺愚利用，欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」翻製變造成一個「台獨的陳水扁」而已？

等到趙翊安長大，意識到他的家庭烙印，他將對外公的失政敗德及外婆所涉匪夷所思的貪腐案作何想法？他又將對父親及爺爺攀附上第一家庭後的人生悲劇有何想法？他又將對其母陳幸妤屢屢在公眾場合失態及與公公反目有何想法？他將認為台獨是救台灣、愛台灣，或認為台獨是「自欺欺人」……。可以確定的是，屆時等待趙翊安自己去尋找答案的問題有很多很多，絕對不僅只有：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」

陳水扁在如今一時一地或許可以騙過他所有的追隨者及支持者，但是他也許騙不過十年、二十年、三十年後心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安。

屆時，陳水扁是台灣國的國父，或是造成台灣分崩離析的台獨騙子及台灣罪人，應當已有答案。到那個時候，趙翊安若再自問「這個貼紙是做什麼的」，或許已是多此一問，枉此一問了！

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2007

On September 15, the day of the “March to Join the UN,” Chen Shui-bian boasted that “everyone in the Chen family able to walk” had showed up. His sons and daughters, and his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law formed a veritable phalanx. His grandson Chao Yi-an and Chao Yi-ting became the focus of media attention.

Little An An in particular became a media darling. Every time television anchors mentioned him, their faces revealed a mixture of affection and pity. Chen Shui-bian had been up to his neck in scandals. Now, riding the wave of the “Plebiscite to Join the UN,” he was suddenly “Standing Tall.”

We have no idea what sort of advanced classes Chen family elders have been providing Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six. But based on Chao Yi-an’s age, he probably doesn’t understand the fact and fiction behind the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” He merrily waved a Green flag, turned to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh beside him and asked: “What’s this (Plebiscite to Join the UN) sticker for?”

The adults nearby laughed at little An An’s question. Nobody bothered giving him a serious explanation. But one day, 10, 20, even 30 years from now, an intellectually mature Chao Yi-an may confront the reality of Taiwan. He may recall the march his elders took him on, and find the answer he was seeking!

But until that day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, can the Taiwan independence movement’s “rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution” be considered a success? Will a “Nation of Taiwan” exist? Or will Taiwan be thoroughly marginalized and suffocated? Will Taiwan and mainland China establish a win/win framework for their mutual benefit? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian become the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Or will he become Taiwan’s Public Enemy, responsible for Taiwan’s destruction and decline? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian, his grandmother Wu Shu-cheng, his paternal grandfather Chao Yu-chu, and his father Chao Chien-min, be found not guilty? Or will they be convicts serving time for corruption?

During political marches, whether Blue or Green, children are invariably the focus of media attention. The innocence of little children always provides such a striking contrast with the dark underbelly of politics. Other children may be nothing more than the rank and file of a Blue Army or Green Army. But Chao Yi-an as “First Grandson” has been branded for life. By the time he becomes an adult, will Chao Yi-an be an honored citizen of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Will he be proud of his grandfather’s meritorious service and this historic event? Will he have departed for distant shores? Will he look back at a marginalized, crumbling Taiwan? Will he consider his family background and this event something to be ashamed of?

Chen Shui-bian desperately hopes to change history’s appraisal of him from “corrupt kleptocrat” to “champion of independence.” Everyone in the Chen family able to walk took to the streets, raising the banner of Taiwan independence. Their real purpose was to use the occasion to jettison the image of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, an unethical Chen Shui-bian. But will waving a magic wand made in Taiwan in fact transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence?

Who can tell Chao Yi-an the purpose of this “March for a Plebiscite to Join the UN?” Should we tell him what Chen Shui-bian said? That “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started.” After all, when Chen Shui-bian said “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started,” he meant that when the march was over, there would still be no “Nation of Taiwan,” there would still be no change in the name of the country, and there would still be no UN membership. What we really want to know is, what’s going to happen to the corrupt Chen family? Nothing? What about Chen Shui-bian’s rampant misrule, which has precipitated a national disaster? Is it too merely going to end up where it started?

On September 15, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will stick up for Chen Shui-bian. But Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six, might not. They may be able to dress him up in a green “Taiwan for UN” T-shirt. But they won’t be able to stop him from asking “What’s this for?” For that matter, do the hundreds of thousands of adults whom Chen Shui-bian has led into the streets by the nose truly understand what the march if for? For whom they are marching? Are they really marching to found a “Nation of Taiwan?” Does founding a “Nation of Taiwan” mean that one “loves Taiwan? Or is Chen Shui-bian merely using them? Are they merely helping “Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat” turn himself into “Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence?”

When Chao Yi-an grows up and becomes aware of his family’s reputation, what will he make of his grandfather’s misrule and his grandmother’s corruption? What will he make of his father and paternal grandfather’s conspiratorial relationship with the First Family? What will be make of his mother Chen Hsing-yu’s public falling out with her father-in-law? Will he think of Taiwan independence as “saving Taiwan, loving Taiwan?” Or will he think or Taiwan independence as “deception of oneself, and deception of others?” When the time comes Chao Yi-an to find an answer, questions will abound, and they won’t be confined to “What’s this sticker for?”

Chen Shui-bian may be able to fool his followers and supporters part of the time. But he prorbably won’t be able to fool Chao YI-an for another 10, 20, 30 years.

Some day, Chen Shui-bian will either be known as the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan,” or as the con artist and criminal responsible for Taiwan’s disintegration. On that day, we will have our answer. Until that day, if Chao Yi-an asks “What’s this for?” he may be asking in vain.

趙翊安問：這個貼紙是做什麼的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.19 02:51 am

九一五入聯公投大遊行，如陳水扁所說，他們一家「能走路的」都去了。子女媳婿一列排開，金孫趙翊安與趙翊廷尤其成為電視鏡頭的焦點。

小安安更是媒體寵兒，電視主播一說到他，都嘴角含笑，眉露愛憐。藉著入聯公投噴發的氣勢，一度陷於貪腐陰霾的陳水扁一家，儼然又「堂堂正正」地站出來了！

不知陳家長輩對不滿六歲的趙翊安曾作何種「行前教育」？但以趙翊安的年歲，大概不太容易瞭解「入聯公投」的是非真偽，難怪他一面興奮地搖著綠旗，一面仰頭問身邊的謝長廷：「這個（入聯公投）貼紙是做什麼的？」

當時，他身邊的成人們被小安安逗得相視哄笑，當然沒有人會認真去解釋他的疑惑。不過，總有那麼一天，十年後、二十年後，或三十年後，當心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安面對十、二十、三十年後的台灣，他或許會回想到當年由家中長輩帶去參加的這場大遊行，屆時他也許就會找到他自己的答案！

到了那一天，十年、二十年、三十年後，台灣正名制憲成功了嗎？台灣國建立了嗎？或台灣已徹底邊緣化而奄奄一息？或台灣與中國大陸建立了雙贏互惠的互動架構？到了那一天，趙翊安的外公陳水扁將是台灣國的國父，或將是使台灣撕裂而趨向敗亡的台灣大罪人？趙翊安的外公陳水扁、外婆吳淑珍、爺爺趙玉柱及父親趙建銘，是被證實無罪無辜，或是正在服刑或刑期已滿的貪汙犯？

在政治遊行場合，無論藍綠，兒童皆是鏡頭焦點；因為，童稚的天真，與陰晦的政治極易呈現強烈的對比。然而，其他的兒童或許只是遊行隊伍中的驚鴻一瞥，但趙翊安「第一金孫」的身世卻是他終身的烙印。待他成人後，趙翊安將是身處光榮的台灣國的領土之上，而以父祖的功勳及這場大遊行為榮？或屆時他已旅寄海外，遙望著邊緣化、甚或敗亡的台灣，而以父祖的罪孽及這場大遊行為羞恥憾恨？

陳水扁亟欲將「貪腐的道德評價」，操作轉變成「台獨的道德評價」。當陳家「能走路的」都走上街頭，標舉著「台獨的道德」，他們是欲藉此甩掉應對「貪腐的道德評價」所負的責任。貪腐的陳水扁，不道德的陳水扁，難道就此搖身一變成為台獨的陳水扁，道德的陳水扁？

誰能告訴趙翊安，為何要舉行這場「入聯公投大遊行」？難道要以陳水扁所說的回答他：只是為了「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」而遊行？何況，陳水扁所說的「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」，只是指最後還是沒有台灣國，沒有改國號，沒有入聯；但是，難道經過這次遊行，陳水扁一家的貪腐也就「什麼事都不曾發生」，陳水扁失政敗德所造成的國災民禍也能「一切皆回到原點」？

九一五，即使十數萬遊行者皆為陳水扁背書，但不滿六歲的趙翊安恐怕不能。因為，他雖被人穿上入聯的「青蛙Ｔ恤」，卻不解地問：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」何況，那些跟著陳水扁上街的十數萬成人，難道真正明白他們為何遊行？為誰遊行？難道真是為了建立台灣國？難道建立台灣國又真是愛台灣？又難道只是被陳水扁欺愚利用，欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」翻製變造成一個「台獨的陳水扁」而已？

等到趙翊安長大，意識到他的家庭烙印，他將對外公的失政敗德及外婆所涉匪夷所思的貪腐案作何想法？他又將對父親及爺爺攀附上第一家庭後的人生悲劇有何想法？他又將對其母陳幸妤屢屢在公眾場合失態及與公公反目有何想法？他將認為台獨是救台灣、愛台灣，或認為台獨是「自欺欺人」……。可以確定的是，屆時等待趙翊安自己去尋找答案的問題有很多很多，絕對不僅只有：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」

陳水扁在如今一時一地或許可以騙過他所有的追隨者及支持者，但是他也許騙不過十年、二十年、三十年後心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安。

屆時，陳水扁是台灣國的國父，或是造成台灣分崩離析的台獨騙子及台灣罪人，應當已有答案。到那個時候，趙翊安若再自問「這個貼紙是做什麼的」，或許已是多此一問，枉此一問了！

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2007

On September 15, the day of the “March to Join the UN,” Chen Shui-bian boasted that “everyone in the Chen family able to walk” had showed up. His sons and daughters, and his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law formed a veritable phalanx. His grandson Chao Yi-an and Chao Yi-ting became the focus of media attention.

Little An An in particular became a media darling. Every time television anchors mentioned him, their faces revealed a mixture of affection and pity. Chen Shui-bian had been up to his neck in scandals. Now, riding the wave of the “Plebiscite to Join the UN,” he was suddenly “Standing Tall.”

We have no idea what sort of advanced classes Chen family elders have been providing Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six. But based on Chao Yi-an’s age, he probably doesn’t understand the fact and fiction behind the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” He merrily waved a Green flag, turned to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh beside him and asked: “What’s this (Plebiscite to Join the UN) sticker for?”

The adults nearby laughed at little An An’s question. Nobody bothered giving him a serious explanation. But one day, 10, 20, even 30 years from now, an intellectually mature Chao Yi-an may confront the reality of Taiwan. He may recall the march his elders took him on, and find the answer he was seeking!

But until that day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, can the Taiwan independence movement’s “rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution” be considered a success? Will a “Nation of Taiwan” exist? Or will Taiwan be thoroughly marginalized and suffocated? Will Taiwan and mainland China establish a win/win framework for their mutual benefit? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian become the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Or will he become Taiwan’s Public Enemy, responsible for Taiwan’s destruction and decline? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian, his grandmother Wu Shu-cheng, his paternal grandfather Chao Yu-chu, and his father Chao Chien-min, be found not guilty? Or will they be convicts serving time for corruption?

During political marches, whether Blue or Green, children are invariably the focus of media attention. The innocence of little children always provides such a striking contrast with the dark underbelly of politics. Other children may be nothing more than the rank and file of a Blue Army or Green Army. But Chao Yi-an as “First Grandson” has been branded for life. By the time he becomes an adult, will Chao Yi-an be an honored citizen of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Will he be proud of his grandfather’s meritorious service and this historic event? Will he have departed for distant shores? Will he look back at a marginalized, crumbling Taiwan? Will he consider his family background and this event something to be ashamed of?

Chen Shui-bian desperately hopes to change history’s appraisal of him from “corrupt kleptocrat” to “champion of independence.” Everyone in the Chen family able to walk took to the streets, raising the banner of Taiwan independence. Their real purpose was to use the occasion to jettison the image of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, an unethical Chen Shui-bian. But will waving a magic wand made in Taiwan in fact transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence?

Who can tell Chao Yi-an the purpose of this “March for a Plebiscite to Join the UN?” Should we tell him what Chen Shui-bian said? That “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started.” After all, when Chen Shui-bian said “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started,” he meant that when the march was over, there would still be no “Nation of Taiwan,” there would still be no change in the name of the country, and there would still be no UN membership. What we really want to know is, what’s going to happen to the corrupt Chen family? Nothing? What about Chen Shui-bian’s rampant misrule, which has precipitated a national disaster? Is it too merely going to end up where it started?

On September 15, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will stick up for Chen Shui-bian. But Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six, might not. They may be able to dress him up in a green “Taiwan for UN” T-shirt. But they won’t be able to stop him from asking “What’s this for?” For that matter, do the hundreds of thousands of adults whom Chen Shui-bian has led into the streets by the nose truly understand what the march if for? For whom they are marching? Are they really marching to found a “Nation of Taiwan?” Does founding a “Nation of Taiwan” mean that one “loves Taiwan? Or is Chen Shui-bian merely using them? Are they merely helping “Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat” turn himself into “Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence?”

When Chao Yi-an grows up and becomes aware of his family’s reputation, what will he make of his grandfather’s misrule and his grandmother’s corruption? What will he make of his father and paternal grandfather’s conspiratorial relationship with the First Family? What will be make of his mother Chen Hsing-yu’s public falling out with her father-in-law? Will he think of Taiwan independence as “saving Taiwan, loving Taiwan?” Or will he think or Taiwan independence as “deception of oneself, and deception of others?” When the time comes Chao Yi-an to find an answer, questions will abound, and they won’t be confined to “What’s this sticker for?”

Chen Shui-bian may be able to fool his followers and supporters part of the time. But he prorbably won’t be able to fool Chao YI-an for another 10, 20, 30 years.

Some day, Chen Shui-bian will either be known as the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan,” or as the con artist and criminal responsible for Taiwan’s disintegration. On that day, we will have our answer. Until that day, if Chao Yi-an asks “What’s this for?” he may be asking in vain.

趙翊安問：這個貼紙是做什麼的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.19 02:51 am

九一五入聯公投大遊行，如陳水扁所說，他們一家「能走路的」都去了。子女媳婿一列排開，金孫趙翊安與趙翊廷尤其成為電視鏡頭的焦點。

小安安更是媒體寵兒，電視主播一說到他，都嘴角含笑，眉露愛憐。藉著入聯公投噴發的氣勢，一度陷於貪腐陰霾的陳水扁一家，儼然又「堂堂正正」地站出來了！

不知陳家長輩對不滿六歲的趙翊安曾作何種「行前教育」？但以趙翊安的年歲，大概不太容易瞭解「入聯公投」的是非真偽，難怪他一面興奮地搖著綠旗，一面仰頭問身邊的謝長廷：「這個（入聯公投）貼紙是做什麼的？」

當時，他身邊的成人們被小安安逗得相視哄笑，當然沒有人會認真去解釋他的疑惑。不過，總有那麼一天，十年後、二十年後，或三十年後，當心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安面對十、二十、三十年後的台灣，他或許會回想到當年由家中長輩帶去參加的這場大遊行，屆時他也許就會找到他自己的答案！

到了那一天，十年、二十年、三十年後，台灣正名制憲成功了嗎？台灣國建立了嗎？或台灣已徹底邊緣化而奄奄一息？或台灣與中國大陸建立了雙贏互惠的互動架構？到了那一天，趙翊安的外公陳水扁將是台灣國的國父，或將是使台灣撕裂而趨向敗亡的台灣大罪人？趙翊安的外公陳水扁、外婆吳淑珍、爺爺趙玉柱及父親趙建銘，是被證實無罪無辜，或是正在服刑或刑期已滿的貪汙犯？

在政治遊行場合，無論藍綠，兒童皆是鏡頭焦點；因為，童稚的天真，與陰晦的政治極易呈現強烈的對比。然而，其他的兒童或許只是遊行隊伍中的驚鴻一瞥，但趙翊安「第一金孫」的身世卻是他終身的烙印。待他成人後，趙翊安將是身處光榮的台灣國的領土之上，而以父祖的功勳及這場大遊行為榮？或屆時他已旅寄海外，遙望著邊緣化、甚或敗亡的台灣，而以父祖的罪孽及這場大遊行為羞恥憾恨？

陳水扁亟欲將「貪腐的道德評價」，操作轉變成「台獨的道德評價」。當陳家「能走路的」都走上街頭，標舉著「台獨的道德」，他們是欲藉此甩掉應對「貪腐的道德評價」所負的責任。貪腐的陳水扁，不道德的陳水扁，難道就此搖身一變成為台獨的陳水扁，道德的陳水扁？

誰能告訴趙翊安，為何要舉行這場「入聯公投大遊行」？難道要以陳水扁所說的回答他：只是為了「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」而遊行？何況，陳水扁所說的「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」，只是指最後還是沒有台灣國，沒有改國號，沒有入聯；但是，難道經過這次遊行，陳水扁一家的貪腐也就「什麼事都不曾發生」，陳水扁失政敗德所造成的國災民禍也能「一切皆回到原點」？

九一五，即使十數萬遊行者皆為陳水扁背書，但不滿六歲的趙翊安恐怕不能。因為，他雖被人穿上入聯的「青蛙Ｔ恤」，卻不解地問：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」何況，那些跟著陳水扁上街的十數萬成人，難道真正明白他們為何遊行？為誰遊行？難道真是為了建立台灣國？難道建立台灣國又真是愛台灣？又難道只是被陳水扁欺愚利用，欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」翻製變造成一個「台獨的陳水扁」而已？

等到趙翊安長大，意識到他的家庭烙印，他將對外公的失政敗德及外婆所涉匪夷所思的貪腐案作何想法？他又將對父親及爺爺攀附上第一家庭後的人生悲劇有何想法？他又將對其母陳幸妤屢屢在公眾場合失態及與公公反目有何想法？他將認為台獨是救台灣、愛台灣，或認為台獨是「自欺欺人」……。可以確定的是，屆時等待趙翊安自己去尋找答案的問題有很多很多，絕對不僅只有：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」

陳水扁在如今一時一地或許可以騙過他所有的追隨者及支持者，但是他也許騙不過十年、二十年、三十年後心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安。

屆時，陳水扁是台灣國的國父，或是造成台灣分崩離析的台獨騙子及台灣罪人，應當已有答案。到那個時候，趙翊安若再自問「這個貼紙是做什麼的」，或許已是多此一問，枉此一問了！

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2007

On September 15, the day of the “March to Join the UN,” Chen Shui-bian boasted that “everyone in the Chen family able to walk” had showed up. His sons and daughters, and his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law formed a veritable phalanx. His grandson Chao Yi-an and Chao Yi-ting became the focus of media attention.

Little An An in particular became a media darling. Every time television anchors mentioned him, their faces revealed a mixture of affection and pity. Chen Shui-bian had been up to his neck in scandals. Now, riding the wave of the “Plebiscite to Join the UN,” he was suddenly “Standing Tall.”

We have no idea what sort of advanced classes Chen family elders have been providing Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six. But based on Chao Yi-an’s age, he probably doesn’t understand the fact and fiction behind the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” He merrily waved a Green flag, turned to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh beside him and asked: “What’s this (Plebiscite to Join the UN) sticker for?”

The adults nearby laughed at little An An’s question. Nobody bothered giving him a serious explanation. But one day, 10, 20, even 30 years from now, an intellectually mature Chao Yi-an may confront the reality of Taiwan. He may recall the march his elders took him on, and find the answer he was seeking!

But until that day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, can the Taiwan independence movement’s “rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution” be considered a success? Will a “Nation of Taiwan” exist? Or will Taiwan be thoroughly marginalized and suffocated? Will Taiwan and mainland China establish a win/win framework for their mutual benefit? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian become the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Or will he become Taiwan’s Public Enemy, responsible for Taiwan’s destruction and decline? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian, his grandmother Wu Shu-cheng, his paternal grandfather Chao Yu-chu, and his father Chao Chien-min, be found not guilty? Or will they be convicts serving time for corruption?

During political marches, whether Blue or Green, children are invariably the focus of media attention. The innocence of little children always provides such a striking contrast with the dark underbelly of politics. Other children may be nothing more than the rank and file of a Blue Army or Green Army. But Chao Yi-an as “First Grandson” has been branded for life. By the time he becomes an adult, will Chao Yi-an be an honored citizen of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Will he be proud of his grandfather’s meritorious service and this historic event? Will he have departed for distant shores? Will he look back at a marginalized, crumbling Taiwan? Will he consider his family background and this event something to be ashamed of?

Chen Shui-bian desperately hopes to change history’s appraisal of him from “corrupt kleptocrat” to “champion of independence.” Everyone in the Chen family able to walk took to the streets, raising the banner of Taiwan independence. Their real purpose was to use the occasion to jettison the image of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, an unethical Chen Shui-bian. But will waving a magic wand made in Taiwan in fact transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence?

Who can tell Chao Yi-an the purpose of this “March for a Plebiscite to Join the UN?” Should we tell him what Chen Shui-bian said? That “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started.” After all, when Chen Shui-bian said “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started,” he meant that when the march was over, there would still be no “Nation of Taiwan,” there would still be no change in the name of the country, and there would still be no UN membership. What we really want to know is, what’s going to happen to the corrupt Chen family? Nothing? What about Chen Shui-bian’s rampant misrule, which has precipitated a national disaster? Is it too merely going to end up where it started?

On September 15, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will stick up for Chen Shui-bian. But Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six, might not. They may be able to dress him up in a green “Taiwan for UN” T-shirt. But they won’t be able to stop him from asking “What’s this for?” For that matter, do the hundreds of thousands of adults whom Chen Shui-bian has led into the streets by the nose truly understand what the march if for? For whom they are marching? Are they really marching to found a “Nation of Taiwan?” Does founding a “Nation of Taiwan” mean that one “loves Taiwan? Or is Chen Shui-bian merely using them? Are they merely helping “Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat” turn himself into “Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence?”

When Chao Yi-an grows up and becomes aware of his family’s reputation, what will he make of his grandfather’s misrule and his grandmother’s corruption? What will he make of his father and paternal grandfather’s conspiratorial relationship with the First Family? What will be make of his mother Chen Hsing-yu’s public falling out with her father-in-law? Will he think of Taiwan independence as “saving Taiwan, loving Taiwan?” Or will he think or Taiwan independence as “deception of oneself, and deception of others?” When the time comes Chao Yi-an to find an answer, questions will abound, and they won’t be confined to “What’s this sticker for?”

Chen Shui-bian may be able to fool his followers and supporters part of the time. But he prorbably won’t be able to fool Chao YI-an for another 10, 20, 30 years.

Some day, Chen Shui-bian will either be known as the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan,” or as the con artist and criminal responsible for Taiwan’s disintegration. On that day, we will have our answer. Until that day, if Chao Yi-an asks “What’s this for?” he may be asking in vain.

趙翊安問：這個貼紙是做什麼的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.19 02:51 am

九一五入聯公投大遊行，如陳水扁所說，他們一家「能走路的」都去了。子女媳婿一列排開，金孫趙翊安與趙翊廷尤其成為電視鏡頭的焦點。

小安安更是媒體寵兒，電視主播一說到他，都嘴角含笑，眉露愛憐。藉著入聯公投噴發的氣勢，一度陷於貪腐陰霾的陳水扁一家，儼然又「堂堂正正」地站出來了！

不知陳家長輩對不滿六歲的趙翊安曾作何種「行前教育」？但以趙翊安的年歲，大概不太容易瞭解「入聯公投」的是非真偽，難怪他一面興奮地搖著綠旗，一面仰頭問身邊的謝長廷：「這個（入聯公投）貼紙是做什麼的？」

當時，他身邊的成人們被小安安逗得相視哄笑，當然沒有人會認真去解釋他的疑惑。不過，總有那麼一天，十年後、二十年後，或三十年後，當心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安面對十、二十、三十年後的台灣，他或許會回想到當年由家中長輩帶去參加的這場大遊行，屆時他也許就會找到他自己的答案！

到了那一天，十年、二十年、三十年後，台灣正名制憲成功了嗎？台灣國建立了嗎？或台灣已徹底邊緣化而奄奄一息？或台灣與中國大陸建立了雙贏互惠的互動架構？到了那一天，趙翊安的外公陳水扁將是台灣國的國父，或將是使台灣撕裂而趨向敗亡的台灣大罪人？趙翊安的外公陳水扁、外婆吳淑珍、爺爺趙玉柱及父親趙建銘，是被證實無罪無辜，或是正在服刑或刑期已滿的貪汙犯？

在政治遊行場合，無論藍綠，兒童皆是鏡頭焦點；因為，童稚的天真，與陰晦的政治極易呈現強烈的對比。然而，其他的兒童或許只是遊行隊伍中的驚鴻一瞥，但趙翊安「第一金孫」的身世卻是他終身的烙印。待他成人後，趙翊安將是身處光榮的台灣國的領土之上，而以父祖的功勳及這場大遊行為榮？或屆時他已旅寄海外，遙望著邊緣化、甚或敗亡的台灣，而以父祖的罪孽及這場大遊行為羞恥憾恨？

陳水扁亟欲將「貪腐的道德評價」，操作轉變成「台獨的道德評價」。當陳家「能走路的」都走上街頭，標舉著「台獨的道德」，他們是欲藉此甩掉應對「貪腐的道德評價」所負的責任。貪腐的陳水扁，不道德的陳水扁，難道就此搖身一變成為台獨的陳水扁，道德的陳水扁？

誰能告訴趙翊安，為何要舉行這場「入聯公投大遊行」？難道要以陳水扁所說的回答他：只是為了「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」而遊行？何況，陳水扁所說的「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」，只是指最後還是沒有台灣國，沒有改國號，沒有入聯；但是，難道經過這次遊行，陳水扁一家的貪腐也就「什麼事都不曾發生」，陳水扁失政敗德所造成的國災民禍也能「一切皆回到原點」？

九一五，即使十數萬遊行者皆為陳水扁背書，但不滿六歲的趙翊安恐怕不能。因為，他雖被人穿上入聯的「青蛙Ｔ恤」，卻不解地問：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」何況，那些跟著陳水扁上街的十數萬成人，難道真正明白他們為何遊行？為誰遊行？難道真是為了建立台灣國？難道建立台灣國又真是愛台灣？又難道只是被陳水扁欺愚利用，欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」翻製變造成一個「台獨的陳水扁」而已？

等到趙翊安長大，意識到他的家庭烙印，他將對外公的失政敗德及外婆所涉匪夷所思的貪腐案作何想法？他又將對父親及爺爺攀附上第一家庭後的人生悲劇有何想法？他又將對其母陳幸妤屢屢在公眾場合失態及與公公反目有何想法？他將認為台獨是救台灣、愛台灣，或認為台獨是「自欺欺人」……。可以確定的是，屆時等待趙翊安自己去尋找答案的問題有很多很多，絕對不僅只有：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」

陳水扁在如今一時一地或許可以騙過他所有的追隨者及支持者，但是他也許騙不過十年、二十年、三十年後心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安。

屆時，陳水扁是台灣國的國父，或是造成台灣分崩離析的台獨騙子及台灣罪人，應當已有答案。到那個時候，趙翊安若再自問「這個貼紙是做什麼的」，或許已是多此一問，枉此一問了！

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?

Chao Yi-an asks: What’s this for?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 19, 2007

On September 15, the day of the “March to Join the UN,” Chen Shui-bian boasted that “everyone in the Chen family able to walk” had showed up. His sons and daughters, and his sons-in-law and daughters-in-law formed a veritable phalanx. His grandson Chao Yi-an and Chao Yi-ting became the focus of media attention.

Little An An in particular became a media darling. Every time television anchors mentioned him, their faces revealed a mixture of affection and pity. Chen Shui-bian had been up to his neck in scandals. Now, riding the wave of the “Plebiscite to Join the UN,” he was suddenly “Standing Tall.”

We have no idea what sort of advanced classes Chen family elders have been providing Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six. But based on Chao Yi-an’s age, he probably doesn’t understand the fact and fiction behind the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” He merrily waved a Green flag, turned to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh beside him and asked: “What’s this (Plebiscite to Join the UN) sticker for?”

The adults nearby laughed at little An An’s question. Nobody bothered giving him a serious explanation. But one day, 10, 20, even 30 years from now, an intellectually mature Chao Yi-an may confront the reality of Taiwan. He may recall the march his elders took him on, and find the answer he was seeking!

But until that day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, can the Taiwan independence movement’s “rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution” be considered a success? Will a “Nation of Taiwan” exist? Or will Taiwan be thoroughly marginalized and suffocated? Will Taiwan and mainland China establish a win/win framework for their mutual benefit? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian become the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Or will he become Taiwan’s Public Enemy, responsible for Taiwan’s destruction and decline? Will Chao Yi-an’s grandfather Chen Shui-bian, his grandmother Wu Shu-cheng, his paternal grandfather Chao Yu-chu, and his father Chao Chien-min, be found not guilty? Or will they be convicts serving time for corruption?

During political marches, whether Blue or Green, children are invariably the focus of media attention. The innocence of little children always provides such a striking contrast with the dark underbelly of politics. Other children may be nothing more than the rank and file of a Blue Army or Green Army. But Chao Yi-an as “First Grandson” has been branded for life. By the time he becomes an adult, will Chao Yi-an be an honored citizen of a “Nation of Taiwan?” Will he be proud of his grandfather’s meritorious service and this historic event? Will he have departed for distant shores? Will he look back at a marginalized, crumbling Taiwan? Will he consider his family background and this event something to be ashamed of?

Chen Shui-bian desperately hopes to change history’s appraisal of him from “corrupt kleptocrat” to “champion of independence.” Everyone in the Chen family able to walk took to the streets, raising the banner of Taiwan independence. Their real purpose was to use the occasion to jettison the image of a corrupt Chen Shui-bian, an unethical Chen Shui-bian. But will waving a magic wand made in Taiwan in fact transform Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat into Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence?

Who can tell Chao Yi-an the purpose of this “March for a Plebiscite to Join the UN?” Should we tell him what Chen Shui-bian said? That “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started.” After all, when Chen Shui-bian said “Nothing’s going to happen. We’re simply going to end up where we started,” he meant that when the march was over, there would still be no “Nation of Taiwan,” there would still be no change in the name of the country, and there would still be no UN membership. What we really want to know is, what’s going to happen to the corrupt Chen family? Nothing? What about Chen Shui-bian’s rampant misrule, which has precipitated a national disaster? Is it too merely going to end up where it started?

On September 15, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators will stick up for Chen Shui-bian. But Chao Yi-an, who is not yet six, might not. They may be able to dress him up in a green “Taiwan for UN” T-shirt. But they won’t be able to stop him from asking “What’s this for?” For that matter, do the hundreds of thousands of adults whom Chen Shui-bian has led into the streets by the nose truly understand what the march if for? For whom they are marching? Are they really marching to found a “Nation of Taiwan?” Does founding a “Nation of Taiwan” mean that one “loves Taiwan? Or is Chen Shui-bian merely using them? Are they merely helping “Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat” turn himself into “Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan independence?”

When Chao Yi-an grows up and becomes aware of his family’s reputation, what will he make of his grandfather’s misrule and his grandmother’s corruption? What will he make of his father and paternal grandfather’s conspiratorial relationship with the First Family? What will be make of his mother Chen Hsing-yu’s public falling out with her father-in-law? Will he think of Taiwan independence as “saving Taiwan, loving Taiwan?” Or will he think or Taiwan independence as “deception of oneself, and deception of others?” When the time comes Chao Yi-an to find an answer, questions will abound, and they won’t be confined to “What’s this sticker for?”

Chen Shui-bian may be able to fool his followers and supporters part of the time. But he prorbably won’t be able to fool Chao YI-an for another 10, 20, 30 years.

Some day, Chen Shui-bian will either be known as the Father of a “Nation of Taiwan,” or as the con artist and criminal responsible for Taiwan’s disintegration. On that day, we will have our answer. Until that day, if Chao Yi-an asks “What’s this for?” he may be asking in vain.

趙翊安問：這個貼紙是做什麼的？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.19 02:51 am

九一五入聯公投大遊行，如陳水扁所說，他們一家「能走路的」都去了。子女媳婿一列排開，金孫趙翊安與趙翊廷尤其成為電視鏡頭的焦點。

小安安更是媒體寵兒，電視主播一說到他，都嘴角含笑，眉露愛憐。藉著入聯公投噴發的氣勢，一度陷於貪腐陰霾的陳水扁一家，儼然又「堂堂正正」地站出來了！

不知陳家長輩對不滿六歲的趙翊安曾作何種「行前教育」？但以趙翊安的年歲，大概不太容易瞭解「入聯公投」的是非真偽，難怪他一面興奮地搖著綠旗，一面仰頭問身邊的謝長廷：「這個（入聯公投）貼紙是做什麼的？」

當時，他身邊的成人們被小安安逗得相視哄笑，當然沒有人會認真去解釋他的疑惑。不過，總有那麼一天，十年後、二十年後，或三十年後，當心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安面對十、二十、三十年後的台灣，他或許會回想到當年由家中長輩帶去參加的這場大遊行，屆時他也許就會找到他自己的答案！

到了那一天，十年、二十年、三十年後，台灣正名制憲成功了嗎？台灣國建立了嗎？或台灣已徹底邊緣化而奄奄一息？或台灣與中國大陸建立了雙贏互惠的互動架構？到了那一天，趙翊安的外公陳水扁將是台灣國的國父，或將是使台灣撕裂而趨向敗亡的台灣大罪人？趙翊安的外公陳水扁、外婆吳淑珍、爺爺趙玉柱及父親趙建銘，是被證實無罪無辜，或是正在服刑或刑期已滿的貪汙犯？

在政治遊行場合，無論藍綠，兒童皆是鏡頭焦點；因為，童稚的天真，與陰晦的政治極易呈現強烈的對比。然而，其他的兒童或許只是遊行隊伍中的驚鴻一瞥，但趙翊安「第一金孫」的身世卻是他終身的烙印。待他成人後，趙翊安將是身處光榮的台灣國的領土之上，而以父祖的功勳及這場大遊行為榮？或屆時他已旅寄海外，遙望著邊緣化、甚或敗亡的台灣，而以父祖的罪孽及這場大遊行為羞恥憾恨？

陳水扁亟欲將「貪腐的道德評價」，操作轉變成「台獨的道德評價」。當陳家「能走路的」都走上街頭，標舉著「台獨的道德」，他們是欲藉此甩掉應對「貪腐的道德評價」所負的責任。貪腐的陳水扁，不道德的陳水扁，難道就此搖身一變成為台獨的陳水扁，道德的陳水扁？

誰能告訴趙翊安，為何要舉行這場「入聯公投大遊行」？難道要以陳水扁所說的回答他：只是為了「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」而遊行？何況，陳水扁所說的「什麼事都不會發生，一切將回到原點」，只是指最後還是沒有台灣國，沒有改國號，沒有入聯；但是，難道經過這次遊行，陳水扁一家的貪腐也就「什麼事都不曾發生」，陳水扁失政敗德所造成的國災民禍也能「一切皆回到原點」？

九一五，即使十數萬遊行者皆為陳水扁背書，但不滿六歲的趙翊安恐怕不能。因為，他雖被人穿上入聯的「青蛙Ｔ恤」，卻不解地問：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」何況，那些跟著陳水扁上街的十數萬成人，難道真正明白他們為何遊行？為誰遊行？難道真是為了建立台灣國？難道建立台灣國又真是愛台灣？又難道只是被陳水扁欺愚利用，欲將「貪腐的陳水扁」翻製變造成一個「台獨的陳水扁」而已？

等到趙翊安長大，意識到他的家庭烙印，他將對外公的失政敗德及外婆所涉匪夷所思的貪腐案作何想法？他又將對父親及爺爺攀附上第一家庭後的人生悲劇有何想法？他又將對其母陳幸妤屢屢在公眾場合失態及與公公反目有何想法？他將認為台獨是救台灣、愛台灣，或認為台獨是「自欺欺人」……。可以確定的是，屆時等待趙翊安自己去尋找答案的問題有很多很多，絕對不僅只有：「這個貼紙是做什麼的？」

陳水扁在如今一時一地或許可以騙過他所有的追隨者及支持者，但是他也許騙不過十年、二十年、三十年後心智漸趨成熟的趙翊安。

屆時，陳水扁是台灣國的國父，或是造成台灣分崩離析的台獨騙子及台灣罪人，應當已有答案。到那個時候，趙翊安若再自問「這個貼紙是做什麼的」，或許已是多此一問，枉此一問了！

A Plebiscite hijacks an Election, A Bian hijacks the People

A Plebiscite hijacks an Election, A Bian hijacks the People
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 17, 2007

After two frantic demonstrations, one Green and one Blue, ruling government and opposition party leaders seem pleased with the results. But many people may be tempted to ask: Now what? Do political leaders on Taiwan have nothing more important to attend to? Is the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” the only topic they intend to tackle between now and March next year? Unfortunately the answer appears to be yes.

Judging by the result, the biggest winner is Chen Shui-bian. Everyone else was a loser. Remember the same time last year? Public outrage over ruling DPP corruption, brought to a head by the Red Shirt Army, nearly drove Chen out of office. Yet today he has succeeded into shifting the focus from “anti-corruption” to a “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” Once he was being passively attacked. Now he has seized the offensive. He has turned his vistor status into a home field advantage. The “Hsieh/Su ticket” been demoted to the status of supporting players. Even the “Ma/Hsiao ticket” can only join the parade. With the result so rewarding for him, what reason does Chen Shui-bian have not to milk it for all it’s worth?

Everyone capable of rational thought knows perfectly well that the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” is an absurd charade. From beginning to end it has been a phony issue manipulated for election purposes. Those in the know, know that the plebiscite is a case of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” But what of it? If the emperor knows no shame, and insists on going through the motions of donning his “new clothes,” can others refuse to play along?

It makes no difference how long Chen Shui-bian remains president. Every day he remains in the presidential palace, he will abuse his authority to the fullest, The term “lame duck” is not in his dictionary. If he wants to exploit the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” for political advantage, he will abuse the power of his office mobilizing the machinery of government. It makes no difference how many people commit suicide by carbon monoxide every day. It makes no difference how many hundreds of millions in tax money are squandered on the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” It makes no difference how many political posters and advertisements peoples are forced to see and hear. Once he “Plebiscite to Join the UN” demonstration is given the green light, two hundred million NT in tax money will be consumed in the blink of an eye. How much more money will be squandered? Who knows? Haven’t central government authorities been complaining about budgets being tight? So why is that whenever President Chen issues an order, money is suddenly no object?

Many people want to scream: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more!” So many matters are more important and urgent than the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” What is the purpose of sweeping aside these matters and compelling the entire nation to pursue this unachievable goal? The answer is this: When someone is unwilling to leave office and face possible prosecution for corruption, why would he pay the slightest attention to your protests? When he has successfully rallied Deep Green mob sentiment, why would he ever yell “Stop.”

After repeated warnings from US officials, many people worried that Washington/Taipei relations would suffer, Not only was Chen Shui-bian unconcerned, he repeatedly sounded the call to arms. He assumed an air of casual defiance, as if ready and willing to have it out with the US and mainland China. We shouldn’t be surprised. Because the more the US and mainland China lash out at him, the more sympathy he will gain from an angry public. Any diplomatic mess can be left to his successor. As he figures it, no matter how big a mess he leaves, he won’t need to take any responsibility whatsoever. Why should he fear when it’s “Heads I win, tails you lose?”

The hotter the “Plebiscite to Join the UN” burns, the dimmer Hsieh and Su’s lights burn. What do any factional rivalries or grievances that Hsieh and Su have count for now? The pair have been demoted to the status of Ping and Pang in Turandot, to Chen’s attendants. During “Plebiscite to Join the UN” rallies, the keynote speaker is always Chen Shui-bian. Hsieh and Su can forget about competing. Both have been marginalized. Chen and Chen alone is masterminding this election.

Many people are also criticizing Ma Ying-jeou and Vincent Siew for meekly joining the parade. Not only have Ma and Siew lost their home court advantage, they have alienated Deep Blue voters. The question is, did they have a choice? In 2004, the Lien/Soong ticket focused on the economy. An absurd plebiscite followed by an even more absurd “assassination attempt” pushed substantive debate off the table. Chen Shui-bian has invested all of the government’s resources into the “Plebiscite to Join the UN.” The US and mainland China have been forced to dance to his tune. Ma and Siew may scream about the economy until they are hoarse, but will voters care? If they refuse to knuckle under, if on September 15, they refuse to join the parade, they will receive no media coverage whatsoever. If on the other hand they take to the streets wearing blue and white “Made in Taiwan” rubber sandals, it makes no difference how ridiculous they might look. At least they will get half of the media coverage. Whether they can shift the focus of debate is another matter altogether.

See what we mean? This is our plight. A president whose term in office ends in half a year, cannot control his own son in law’s insider trading or account for the irregularities in his own State Affairs Confidential Expense case. Yet he can hijack the Democratic Progressive Party, hijack the Executive Yuan, hijack Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang, hijack the Kuomintang and the Ma/Siew ticket, even hijack the ordinary citizen. Right now nobody can tell A Bian to shut up. Nobody can tell him to cease and desist. In the coming half year, we will witness a presidential election being hijacked by a plebiscite. We will do so as A Bian’s hostages.

中國時報 　
2007.09.17
是公投綁大選，也是阿扁綁全民
中時社論

兩場激情的動員之後，朝野領袖似乎都對效果頗為滿意，但是很多人此刻都很想問一句：接下來呢？是不是從此刻到明年三月，台灣已沒有其他更重要的事，就只有「公投入聯」這檔事？很遺憾，照這個趨勢繼續走下去，好像答案就是這樣！

從最終的效果看來，最大的贏家當然是陳水扁一人獨得！有人還記得去年的此刻嗎？那時節紅衫軍所掀起的反貪腐怒潮，幾乎將他衝下台，如今他將議題焦點成功的從「反貪腐」扭轉成「公投入聯」，從被動挨打變成主動出擊，從「客場劣勢」轉成「主場優勢」，不僅讓「長昌配」淪為配角，「馬蕭配」也只能拿香跟拜，有如此豐碩的成果，請問陳水扁有什麼理由不玩下去？

是的，所有懂得理性思考的人，都清楚這場「入聯公投」的虛妄性與荒謬性，是從頭到尾在配合選舉操作的假議題。但就算有識者指出它根本就是「國王的新衣」又有何用？如果被剝光的國王自己根本不覺羞慚，還是要硬穿他的「新衣」繼續走秀，其他人能夠不跟嗎？

要知道，不管陳水扁還要做多久的總統，只要他在總統府上班一天，他就會將他的權力使用到極致，在他字典中從來沒有「跛鴨」這兩字。他要玩「公投入聯」，他就一定藉由他職位上優勢，驅動整個國家機器全部投入。所以不論民間每天燒炭身亡的數字是不是在攀高，幾億幾億國民納的稅金都會投進「公投入聯」運動上，標語貼紙廣告早就充斥所有人的視聽空間了，一場入聯公投的遊行，兩億的國家預算眼睛眨都不眨一下就全砸了下去，接下來還要耗費多少錢誰也不知道，中央政府總預算不是一直吃緊嗎？問題是，陳總統一聲令下，多少錢也得配合，不是嗎？

問題就是這麼簡單，很多人都想吶喊：「我受夠了！」當下的台灣比「公投入聯」還重要的議題實在太多了，把一堆急迫的問題擱著不管，卻要傾舉國之力去追求一個根本達不到的目標，這是在幹嘛呢？問題是，當一個面對貪腐訴訟都不肯下台的總統，他會理你嗎？當他已激起深綠選民的熱情之際，他還會住手嗎？

在美國官員一而再、再而三的提出警語後，許多人擔心關心美台關係將因此受到傷害，但陳水扁不僅不怕，還一再公開嗆聲叫陣，一副不惜與美中兩大超強開幹也無所懼的氣魄，他當然可以什麼都不怕，因為此刻美中的施壓力道越大，收割民意反彈成果的是他，未來善後的則是下一任總統！此刻的他就算把外交爛攤子捅得更大，都不必負任何責任，有這種無本生意，試問他何所懼？

注意到沒有？公投入聯炒越熱，蘇謝兩人的身影也就愈黯淡，先前蘇謝有過什麼派系宿怨，有過什麼誤解心結，現在還重要嗎？不重要了，他們兩人早淪為阿扁身旁的哼哈二將，所有公投入聯的造勢場合，壓軸的永遠是陳水扁，蘇謝也不必比什麼大小了，反正一塊都被邊緣化了，這是場陳水扁一個人在玩的選舉！

也有不少人在批評馬蕭何必「拿香跟拜」？不僅喪失主場優勢，也激怒深藍選民，問題是他們有選擇嗎？二○○四年的連宋配談民生議題談得還少嗎？一場荒誕的諮詢性公投外加兩顆子彈，還不是摧枯拉朽，擋都擋不住？當陳水扁祭出所有資源在玩入聯公投之際，當美、中兩大超強都被逼隨之起舞之際，馬蕭兩人扯破喉嚨去喊拚經濟，有人會搭理嗎？他們如果不拿香跟拜，九一五也不辦遊行，整個視聽空間他們連邊都沾不到，他們穿著「藍白拖」上街，自不自然是另一回事，起碼守住半場優勢，至於他們能否再轉移焦點，那得看他們自己的能耐了。

看清楚沒有？這就是我們處境，一個任期只剩半年的總統，沒本事管束他自己女婿炒內線，也沒本事交代他的國務機要費去向，卻有本事綁架民進黨、綁架行政院、綁架長昌配，進一步綁架國民黨與馬蕭配，最後就是全民被綁架！此刻沒有人能叫阿扁住嘴，也沒人能叫他住手，未來半年，我們不僅要在公投綁大選的歲月中度過，也要在阿扁綁全民的氛圍中度過！