Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he “absolutely would not declare martial law.” This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation’s military would “obey the Command in Chief.” He even added that if he were to implement martial law, “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.”

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment,” how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang’s 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian’s talk of “martial law” as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu’s declaration that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment” as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said “It probably wouldn’t come to that.” It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how “hypothetical” the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one’s spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not “whether he mispoke and changed his tune.” What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he “absolutely would not declare martial law” during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation’s highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law” at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief’s orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation’s military has the option of backing the “Commander in Chief,” right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu’s statement, his “slip of the tongue,” is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one’s mind. Often the first words to escape one’s mouth are the ones that were in one’s heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one’s tune and say “No harm, no foul.” Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a “Soft Coup.” This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as “election rhetoric” and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A “declaration of martial law” is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is “giving careful consideration.” Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.” True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan’s commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he “absolutely would not declare martial law.” This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation’s military would “obey the Command in Chief.” He even added that if he were to implement martial law, “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.”

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment,” how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang’s 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian’s talk of “martial law” as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu’s declaration that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment” as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said “It probably wouldn’t come to that.” It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how “hypothetical” the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one’s spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not “whether he mispoke and changed his tune.” What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he “absolutely would not declare martial law” during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation’s highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law” at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief’s orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation’s military has the option of backing the “Commander in Chief,” right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu’s statement, his “slip of the tongue,” is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one’s mind. Often the first words to escape one’s mouth are the ones that were in one’s heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one’s tune and say “No harm, no foul.” Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a “Soft Coup.” This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as “election rhetoric” and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A “declaration of martial law” is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is “giving careful consideration.” Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.” True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan’s commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he “absolutely would not declare martial law.” This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation’s military would “obey the Command in Chief.” He even added that if he were to implement martial law, “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.”

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment,” how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang’s 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian’s talk of “martial law” as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu’s declaration that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment” as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said “It probably wouldn’t come to that.” It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how “hypothetical” the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one’s spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not “whether he mispoke and changed his tune.” What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he “absolutely would not declare martial law” during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation’s highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law” at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief’s orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation’s military has the option of backing the “Commander in Chief,” right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu’s statement, his “slip of the tongue,” is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one’s mind. Often the first words to escape one’s mouth are the ones that were in one’s heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one’s tune and say “No harm, no foul.” Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a “Soft Coup.” This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as “election rhetoric” and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A “declaration of martial law” is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is “giving careful consideration.” Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.” True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan’s commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he “absolutely would not declare martial law.” This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation’s military would “obey the Command in Chief.” He even added that if he were to implement martial law, “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.”

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment,” how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang’s 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian’s talk of “martial law” as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu’s declaration that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment” as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said “It probably wouldn’t come to that.” It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how “hypothetical” the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one’s spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not “whether he mispoke and changed his tune.” What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he “absolutely would not declare martial law” during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation’s highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law” at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief’s orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation’s military has the option of backing the “Commander in Chief,” right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu’s statement, his “slip of the tongue,” is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one’s mind. Often the first words to escape one’s mouth are the ones that were in one’s heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one’s tune and say “No harm, no foul.” Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a “Soft Coup.” This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as “election rhetoric” and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A “declaration of martial law” is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is “giving careful consideration.” Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.” True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan’s commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!

Martial Law? Don’t even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he “absolutely would not declare martial law.” This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation’s military would “obey the Command in Chief.” He even added that if he were to implement martial law, “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.”

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment,” how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang’s 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian’s talk of “martial law” as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu’s declaration that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment” as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said “It probably wouldn’t come to that.” It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how “hypothetical” the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one’s spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not “whether he mispoke and changed his tune.” What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he “absolutely would not declare martial law” during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law.” It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation’s highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about “giving careful consideration to imposing martial law” at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief’s orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation’s military has the option of backing the “Commander in Chief,” right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu’s statement, his “slip of the tongue,” is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one’s mind. Often the first words to escape one’s mouth are the ones that were in one’s heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one’s tune and say “No harm, no foul.” Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a “Soft Coup.” This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as “election rhetoric” and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A “declaration of martial law” is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is “giving careful consideration.” Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that “The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment.” True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan’s commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？

A Single Standard for Vote-Buying Prosecutions

A Single Standard for Vote-Buying Prosecutions
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2007

The State Public Prosecutor General’s Office launched its “Project Minefield” with a great deal of fanfare. It boasted that it had cast a dragnet over 3,000 cases of vote-buying. The very next day, ironically, the Kaohsiung District Court announced its ruling on the Kaohsiung Mayoral Race Per Diem scandal from last year. The court ruled that the 500 NT Per Diem the DPP issued to supporters had nothing to do with vote-buying! They were merely “wages” paid to participants in election rallies. Everyone involved was ruled “not guilty.” Even the Ministry of Justice was outraged by the court’s ruling, and issued a stern warning that same night: Those involved in the Per Diem scandal should not assume they won’t be prosecuted.

When the public questioned the handling of the State Affairs Confidential Expense case, the Discretionary Fund case, and other major cases, the Ministry of Justice merely offered explanations and clarified doubts. It did not react as strongly as it has now. For the Ministry of Justice to express a legal opinion on an isolated case is extraordinary. The ministry’s reaction underscores its concern about the negative impact this ruling may have on future vote-buying prosecutions.

The Kaohsiung Per Diem decision defied the average person’s common sense understanding of what it means to buy votes. For several years, both the ruling and opposition parties have been competing to catch the other engaging in vote-buying. Issuing Per Diem is recognized by both camps as vote-buying. Catching someone red-handed issuing Per Diem has become an effective campaign tactic. To cite a random example, during the Taipei County Magistrate Election two years ago, Democratic Progressive Party candidate Luo Wen-chia’s election campaign was videotaped issuing its supporters 300 NT in Per Diem. Whether the videotape had a decisive impact on Luo’s election campaign and led to his loss is hard to say. Although the Banqiao District Court handed down a suspended sentence, it unequivocally ruled that issuing Per Diem was vote-buying.

The Taipei County Magistrate Election was not the only case. The Kaohsiung Mayoral Election last year was another. A campaign worker for Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator Luo Chih-ming also issued participants in an election rally 500 NT in Per Diem. He was sentenced to three years and two months in prison, and deprived of his political rights for three years. When one compares the sentences doled out to Ku Hsin-ming and Tsai Neng-hsiang, one has to wonder, was there really that much difference between 300 NT and 500 NT in Per Diem for attending a evening election rally?

For several years, the ruling and opposition camps have resorted to large scale mobilization to increase attendance at their rallies. Any large-scale event involving tens of thousands or even thousands of supporters, inevitably necessitate tour buses to transport flag-waving, slogan-shouting supporters. Not all these supporters are constituents from the candidate’s own electoral district. Campaign workers responsible for mobilizing these supporters know perfectly well it is impossible to recruit that many people willing to spend hours riding buses, wolfing down brown bag lunches, and shouting campaign slogans, without paying them “wages.” The only question is how they are to be paid. One must never get caught. One must never issue Per Diem on the buses, where there is no place to hide.

It is true that some individuals who issued Per Diem in the past have been found “not guilty.” The justification given for such verdicts was that Per Diem and voting did not amount to a quid pro quo. Per Diem was merely “wages for work on behalf of the campaign.” Admittedly, prosecutors and judges must be discrete before convicting someone of a crime. One cannot convict based on mere suspicions. Whether there was a quid pro quo is something that must be verified. But how did the judge determine that there was no quid pro quo? Elections require secret ballots. Judges cannot demand that people who were issued Per Diem reveal how they voted. Are we really going to check recipients against voter registration lists to see whether they were qualified to vote? Or are we simply going to take one side at its word?

Ku Hsin-ming admitted during his trial that people on the bus said they were voting for candidate number one, and that he replied, “Uh huh.” Nevertheless the judge ruled that because so many people were talking at the same time, Ku could not be sure what they meant! If we are to believe the judge, Ku Hsing-ming’s testimony and the testimony of supporters on the bus jibe. If we are to believe the judge, these supporters were on their way to a rally, but didn’t know whose rally they were going to, and had to verify whose rally they were going to before deciding whom to vote for.

These campaign supporters were recruited by local party bosses. Certainly the local party bosses knew who they were supporting. Rallies have become an integral part of election campaigns. As a result, the staging of rallies has evolved into a profession all its own. Rally organizers have become hired guns able to take on jobs at a moment’s notice. If the judges presiding over such cases accept such rationalizations, it will be increasingly difficult to prove that issuing Per Diem constitutes vote-buying. Any vote-buying activity can and will be disguised as Per Diem, as “wages for work on behalf of the campaign,” exempt from prosecution. How will the prosecutors who laid down 3000 land mines be able to investigate vote-buying? Will they simply indict everyone and let the judges separate the sheep from the goats? Suppose every candidate who issued Per Diem then lost his election bid decides to file suit? Isn’t that a frightening prospect? If public prosecutors abide by this decision, and fail to indict those who issue Per Diem for campaign rallies, how can they indict those who hold fund-raising dinners?

On the eve of the election, at the very moment public prosecutors have promised comprehensive anti-corruption initiatives, the Kaohsiung District Court dropped its bombshell. Just as the legal system must adopt a single standard for the Four Princes Discretionary Fund cases, so it must adopt a single standard for the Per Diem cases. Only then can the public trust the legal system and reconcile its judgments with common sense. Only then will controversy over public prosecutors’ vigorous investigation of vote-buying die down.

中國時報 　2007.11.28
查賄該訂出統一的標準了
中時社論

　就在最高檢察署大張旗鼓推出「布雷專案」，號稱布下三千多天羅地網查察賄選的隔日，高雄地方法院對去年高雄市長選舉走路工疑案做出一審判決，指五百元走路工並無選票的對價關係，而是給參與造勢晚會者的「工資」，全案無罪！這個判決一出，連法務部都傻眼，連夜發出聲明呼籲：不要以為走路工就一定不涉刑責。

　即使國務機要費、特別費等重大案件，外界責難、懷疑湧入之際，法務部都沒有這麼反應直接，僅僅被動說明和澄清疑慮。法務部對單一判決做出特別聲明，確實是非常非常特殊的狀況，也凸顯這個判決確有可能對未來的查察賄選造成相當影響。

　高雄走路工案的判決，確實改變過去一般人對賄選的「常識性定義」。尤其在這幾年，朝野藍綠競相抓賄，「走路工」不但被認定應屬賄選，甚至也成為攻擊對手的選戰方法。隨便舉例，前年底台北縣長選舉，民進黨候選人羅文嘉陣營就被拍到支持者為他發放三百元走路工的錄影帶，這支錄影帶對羅的選舉造成重大衝擊，雖然很難講因此讓他落選，而最後板橋地院審理後亦確認為賄選，但以緩刑處分。

　不只台北縣長選舉的例子，同樣是去年高雄市長選舉，候選人之一台聯立委羅志明的競選幹部，也是發給參加造勢晚會的民眾三百元走路工，結果被判刑三年二個月，還褫奪公權三年。對比古鋅酩和蔡能祥的無罪境遇，真不免讓人懷疑，這三百元和五百元的造勢晚會走路工，真的差這麼多嗎？

　事實上，這幾年選舉，朝野陣營習慣性地以動員方式擴大造勢，任何大型晚會，不要說萬人晚會，即使數千人的場合，都難免有遊覽車載運民眾，以為搖旗吶喊助勢之用。這些遊覽車載來的民眾，當然不可能都屬選區內擁有投票權的選民；負責動員的黨政幹部，多數人心知肚明，要找這麼多肯花數小時坐車、吃便當、喊「凍蒜」的民眾，不給點「工資」是不可能的，只是給的方法要格外注意，千萬不能給逮到小辮子，尤其不能在車上發放，讓自己躲都無處躲。

　過去發放走路工判無罪的案例不是沒有，認定無罪的理由和這次判決如出一轍，認為沒有對價關係，而是「催票的工錢」。檢審要入人於罪，當然要慎重，不能看到影就說有罪，對價關係確實應該是一個必須考量的標準。只是法官怎麼認定有沒有對價關係呢？選舉是秘密投票，法官既不能要求拿到走路工的民眾報告他到底投給誰，難道要一一比對民眾戶籍所在地，確認他們到底有沒有投票權？還是只聽信一面之詞呢？

　在這次個案上，法官認為，古鋅酩雖在審理時承認，有民眾在車上講要投給一號，他也說「嗯嗯」，但因為一路上都有人在講話，他無法確認自己的意思到底是什麼。從相信法官、古鋅酩與車上民眾的說詞推衍，這群在車上準備前往造勢的民眾，還不能確認到底自己是參加哪一位候選人的場子？才要確認一下，是不是要投給一號。

　從輔選實務來說，助勢民眾既是樁腳號召動員，至少樁腳應該知道自己是支持誰？是誰的樁腳，但是，當造勢晚會成為選戰主流，自然會衍生出專門因應動員的「特殊行業」：可以隨時接案的臨時工。如果承審相關案件的法官，未來都接受這個社會現實，走路工是否賄選的認定勢必愈來愈困難，而任何可能涉及賄選的行為，都可以藉由舉辦造勢晚會，順帶發放「助勢工資」而免責，那布下三千地雷的檢察官，還能如何查察賄選呢？他是不管三七二十一，全部先起訴再丟給法官嗎？萬一所有因涉入走路工又落選的候選人，全部以此為影響選舉之變數，在選後提出選舉訴訟，這選務爭端豈不多得嚇人？檢察官若依此判決，造勢晚會的走路工不起訴，那餐會要不要起訴？

　值此大選前夕，檢察官宣示全面查賄的同時，高雄地方法院的判決確實像丟下一顆震撼彈，或許，就像天王特別費應該訂定統一的標準和見解一般，有關查賄的標準，檢審應該取得法律的齊一見解，如此才不致任由民眾「常識性的判準」懷疑司法公信力，也可有效緩和檢察官雷厲風行查賄可能引爆的衝突。

Love for Taiwan should not be a Political Posture

Love for Taiwan should not be a Political Posture
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2007

Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook the dramatic changes that can occur over time. Absent comparisons, it is easy to overlook one’s own stagnation or even regression. Over the past three months, the China Times has mobilized substantial manpower and resources producing its “Taiwan’s Hope 2008″ retrospective, which examines Taiwan’s progress over the past two decades. We interviewed people from every walk of life, reminiscing with them about the past, and sharing their concerns about the future.

During this process, we rediscovered Taiwan. Sadly, Taiwan has remained stagnant for the past decade, its vitality sapped by an endless political soap opera that repeats and repeats and never goes anywhere. Happily, Taiwan retains its resilience. As a result of their love for this land, more and more people are refusing to be politically manipulated. More and more people are speaking out, voicing their aspirations for the future. We must find our own way. The Chinese people on Taiwan deserve a better life. Those who live on this land, have no excuse to give up and no right to despair. Just as in the past, whenever Taiwan touched bottom, that is when things turned around. Taiwan underwent the White Terror, then the economy took off. Taiwan underwent chaos, then a Quiet Revolution. Taiwan underwent regime change, and the public welcomed the advent of a new era. Tragically, to everyone’s surprise, the world continued on its way, while Taiwan stagnated.

During these years, a Taiwan which prided itself on its economic miracle, found itself eclipsed by South Korea in annual GDP. Taiwan’s replacement by a rapidly rising mainland China became a global phenomenon that could no longer be ignored. Taiwan, it was once said, was “up to its knees in money.” Now it is up to its neck in red ink. The next generation will be born owing money. A formerely egalitarian Taiwan is becoming an “M Shaped Society” in which the middle class has vanished. This M Shaped Society will be the next generation’s unwelcome legacy. Children will be born into two different worlds. From the moment they are born, the will start out unequal. We are unlikely to witness another child from a “Category Three Impoverished Household” become ROC president.

When discussing Taiwan’s past, many members of the public, including scholars and experts, find themselves imagining Taiwan’s future, and feel a deep sense of unease. When asked what worries them most, they sigh and reply, “Everything. Everything worries me.” When asked whether Taiwan will be better off in ten years, only 20% of the public says it will be. As many as 34% think otherwise. Such numbers were unimaginable ten or twenty years ago. Taiwan was once a society brimming with confidence. No matter what occupation, give a man a suitcase and he would conquer the world. So how did it all come to this?

To many anxious and angry members of the public, politics is a curse they can’t seem to rid themselves of. Reunification vs. independence, Blue vs. Green, so-called “ethnicity,” which is nothing more than communal groups, and cross-Straits issues, all involve politics. Put bluntly, ideology is leading everyone around by the nose. Being led around by the nose is bad enough. What’s worse is that for the past several years Taiwan’s society has been led around in circles, and gone nowhere. Political indoctrination and mobilization have deepened social divisions. Political rhetoric rides roughshod over the Rule of Law and fills people’s hearts with hatred. Opposition between “us” and “them” helps justify cronyism and corruption. Professional expertise is treated with contempt. As a consequence public works and tax policy become means of buying votes and winning elections. Cross-Straits policies are impossible to implement. Direct Links have become a chimera. The 40% upper limit for investments on the mainland has remained in place. Taiwan’s wealth is outsourcing itself at a rate and in a manner the government cannot fathom.

What can Taiwan do? If current trends cannot be reversed, what is Taiwan going to look like ten years from now? Will it look like Brazil or the Philippines? During our investigations, many people said that whether Taiwan can turn things around depends on what we do in the coming year or two. The hour is late. Action is overdue.

The media is a part of the larger environment. It cannot divorce itself from this environment. When politics possesses everyone like a demon, much of the media gets led around by the nose as well. They parrot the politicians, classifying individuals as enemy or friend. They willingly act as the government’s mouthpieces and attack dogs. The result is the language of hate trips off the tongues of third rate demagogues and insinuates itself into every household. One turns on the television, and lo and behold, there is the enemy, there is the spectacle of civil war in the guise of democratic elections, a waking nightmare.

The China Times champions freedom, democracy, and openess. It never cozies up to authority. It refuses to divide people into “us” and “them.” The “Taiwan’s Hopes 2008″ retrospective focused on the people of this land. We wanted to hear the people’s voices and understand their aspirations. In the process, even though we were subjected to political persecution and smears, we never flinched. Members of the media are society’s guardians. We uncover problems and seek solutions alongside the Chinese people on Taiwan.

Our investigation revealed deep skepticism about the government’s competence, shared by experts and laymen alike. As many as 75% of the people do not believe the government has the ability to solve society’s problems. Such numbers would be enough to leave us deeply pessimistic about Taiwan’s future. After all, the government is incapable of even maintaining the status quo, let alone reversing a downward trend. But we feel just the opposite. During our investigation, experts and laymen alike still harbored hope for the future of Taiwan. Most importantly, 80 to 90% of the leaders polled were willing to take action on behalf of Taiwan’s future. Even among those ambivalent about Taiwan’s future, some 46% are committed to take action.

“Don’t always rely on the government!” Taiwan’s vitality and competitiveness derives from the people. Taiwan’s resilience will be our greatest asset in our reversal of fortune. The people mistrust the government. Yet the government refuses to open its eyes and see the problems. It refuses to open its ears and listen to the people’s wishes. It remains drunk with power. It continues to believe that winning elections is everything. The Chinese people on Taiwan need wait for them no longer.

Look to the land. Identify with the people. Every individual can do more. The China Times’ “Taiwan’s Hope 2008″ retrospective is a beginning, not an end. Our efforts show that love for Taiwan is not a short term political ploy. Only selfless love will enable Taiwan to thrive.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.27
愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作
中時社論

　不經過比較，不曉得時間的力量；不經過比較，不會驚覺人可能在時間之流中完全停滯，甚至後退。《中國時報》用了超過三個月的時間，動員龐大的人力與資源，製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，重新回望這十年、廿年來的台灣。我們採訪各行各業的人們，回味他們的記憶與愛，分享他們的焦慮和迷惘。

　這是一個重新認識台灣、重新尋找台灣的過程。讓我們嘆息的是，台灣的生命力在這十年竟彷彿被困在週而復始、永不下檔的政治連續劇裡；讓我們高興的是，台灣的韌性依舊在，因為對這塊土地的愛，愈來愈多人再不願意被政治綁架；愈來愈多人願意大聲說出自己的盼望：我們要走自己的路，台灣人值得擁有更高品質的生活。因為生活在這塊土地上的人們，沒有放棄的道理，沒有絕望的權力，就像是台灣過去曾經走過的路，當沈悶到極致，跌盪到谷底，就該是會翻轉而起的時刻。

　回顧過去的歲月，台灣走過白色恐怖，就走出了經濟起飛；走過街頭狂飆，就走出了寧靜革命；走過了政黨輪替，在眾人欣喜迎接新時代到來的同時，的確，沒有太多人料到世界運轉未嘗停止，但台灣卻停滯了。

　就在這幾年，以創造經濟奇蹟為傲的台灣，國民平均所得被南韓超越；取代台灣成為全球化趨勢下不可忽略的現象是「中國崛起」；曾經號稱「台灣錢淹腳目」的國家財政連年赤字，我們的下一代尚未出生就開始負債；相對均富的台灣，開始討論著中產消失的「Ｍ型社會」；Ｍ型社會反映到下一代，就造成兩個世界的孩子，從他們來到這個世界的第一刻起，他們就站在一個不公平的起跑點上。台灣還創造得出「三級貧戶當總統」的神話嗎？

　許許多多民眾和學者專家，與我們談起台灣的過去，想像台灣的未來，憂心不已，他們一路勾選著他們最擔憂的問題，一路嘆氣，「唉，都是問題，都是問題。」問起未來十年台灣會不會更好？只有百分之廿的民眾給予肯定答案，認為台灣未來十年會變得更不好的竟高達百分之卅四以上。這個數據在過去十年、甚至廿年，都是難以想像的，台灣曾經是這麼一個有信心的社會，不論各行各業，一卡皮箱就能走遍全世界，為什麼迷惘了呢？

　在林林總總民眾擔憂、甚至憤怒的問題中，「政治」就像個擺脫不了的詛咒。從統獨、藍綠、族群到兩岸關係，無一不緊扣著政治，直接的說，就是被政治識意型態牽著跑；牽著能跑也罷了，這幾年的景況是台灣社會各面向被政治牽著團團轉─原地打轉。政治操作與動員，擴大了社會對立；政治語言既無法治觀念，還充滿仇恨；因為敵我壁壘分明，表現在政商關係上就更容易造成掛勾和貪腐的小圈圈；專業決策空間不受尊重，結果公共建設與租稅政策，成為討好選民的選舉利多；兩岸關係因此無法有效開展，不但三通直航迄今猶如鏡花水月，開放赴大陸投資百分之四十上限亦始終未能調整，台灣財富以一種政府看不見的速度和方向：加速外移。

　台灣還能怎麼辦呢？如果這一切不能翻轉，台灣未來十年將會是什麼局面？是曾經紛亂的巴西還是菲律賓？在我們調查過程中，許多人都說，台灣能不能從這幾年的呆滯中逐漸灰暗，翻轉到光明躍動的另一面，「關鍵就在這一、二年。」事實上，時間也容不得台灣再拖延，我們一定得採取行動。

　媒體做為大環境的一環，不可能自外於這個行動。當政治如同詛咒般充斥各面向的同時，很大部份的媒體同樣被政治牽著鼻子跑，用類如政客的語言分敵分友，自甘為政客的傳聲筒和打擊政敵的工具，結果仇恨的語言，就這麼從不入流的政客口中，鑽進了每一個市井小民的家中，打開電視機就看得到敵人，就看得到選舉的戰爭，成為日常生活甩不開的噩夢。

　《中國時報》秉持自由、民主、開放的精神，從來不向權力者靠攏，更不屑屈從於劃分敵我的政治動員。因此，《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，從一開始就鎖定這塊土地的人民，我們要聽到人民的呼吸、人民的心聲。在過程中，即使遭到莫明的政治打壓和抹黑，我們從未退縮，因為我們堅信：既身為媒體，就要扮演好守望者、警示者的角色，我們毫不鬆懈地挖掘問題，找出問題，同時，與台灣人民一同追尋答案。

　在我們的調查過程中，對政府能力的不信任，是民眾和學者專家的高度共識。高達百分之七十五的人，根本不相信政府有解決問題的能力。這麼高的比例，足以讓我們對台灣未來完全悲觀，因為沒能力的政府改變不了現狀，改善不了愈趨惡化的各種情況。但是，結果剛好相反，在我們的調查中，不論是民眾或學者專家絕大多數還是對台灣懷抱希望；最重要的，高達八、九成受訪的意見領袖毫不猶疑地表達，願意為台灣的未來採取行動。即使對台灣未來彷徨無力的一般民眾，仍有四成六的受訪者，不吝於採取行動。

　「不要只想著靠政府！」是的，台灣的生命力和競爭力，向來都是從民間勃發，台灣人的韌性是我們扭轉未來的最大資產。這麼不被人民信賴的政府，如果還是不肯張開眼睛，看清楚問題何在？不肯打開耳朵，聆聽人民的心聲，依舊自以為是地陷入政治動員的狂喜之中而不可自拔，以為選舉就是一切，勝選就是唯一，台灣人民不必等他。

　面向土地、心向人民的時候，每一個人都可以做更多事。《中國時報》製作《台灣希望二○○八》系列專題，只是一個開端，不是結束。我們的努力可以証明：愛台灣，不該是短視的政治操作；唯有深沉無私的愛，得以讓台灣生命力，生生不息。

Oppose the Anti-Democratic Tide on Taiwan

Oppose the Anti-Democratic Tide on Taiwan
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2007

Taipei City and other Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. Last night, Chen Shui-bian responded that he was seriously considering four possibilities suggested by his advisors. These include: One, declaring martial law. Two, declaring the results of any plebiscites from counties and cities that use the two stage balloting procedure invalid. Three, firing all election officials in Pan Blue administered counties and municipalities and reappointing new ones. Four, postponing the election until an agreement has been reached. Assuming Chen Shui-bian was not merely running off at the mouth, we appeal to all individuals of conscience on Taiwan. Do not allow a solitary individual to destroy the ROC’s democracy. We must not allow the ROC, which is already on the road to democracy, to backslide into authoritarianism and martial law.

The sad fact is an anti-democratic tide is rising on Taiwan. It already threatens the ROC’s political framework. Some counties and cities intend to use a two stage balloting procedure. They are protesting the Central Election Commitee’s violation of laws mandating secret balloting and administrative neutrality. To everyones’ astonishment, the Executive Yuan, the Ministry of the Interior, the Central Election Committee, and the Ministry of Justice convened a press conference, threatening to punish any polling station workers who participate in the two stage balloting process. The ruling regime even threatened to press criminal charges against them and take away their pensions. It is resorting to unbelievably thuggish means to increase the number of plebiscite ballots cast. It is threatening criminal penalties and administrative punishments against these civil servants, who have a sworn duty to remain scrupulously neutral. The methods the ruling regime are using to impose its flagrantly biased balloting procedure upon local governments are barbaric. Martial law was rescinded twenty years ago. The DPP boasts of its love for the people. Yet it reveals its contempt for the people, its ostensible masters, by flagrantly manipulating the balloting procedure to ensure the results it wants. How can discriminating Individuals not be distressed?

Several months ago the Democratic Progressive Party, attempting to rationalize its opposition to Central Election Committee reform, obstructed the conduct of official business in the Legislature by means of physical violence. DPP legislators even locked the doors of the Legislature, then physically attacked opposition legislators. Whether the proposed Pan Blue bill for the Central Election Committee reform was ideal can be subjected to rational debate. But it absolutely may not be obstructed by resort to physical violence. In retrospect, the DPP’s thuggish, anti-democratic behavior, was to ensure that the Central Election Committee would remain the ruling DPP’s regime’s reelection committee. The Central Election Committee is supposed to be objective and neutral. It is supposed to ensure free and fair elections, and thereby maintaining the core values of democracy. But Central Election Committee members controlled by today’s Democratic Progressive Party, are willing to sell their souls, to betray their consciences, to be stooges for a specific political party. Not one of them understands the value of democracy. The Democratic Progressive Party is the political party which has destroyed the ROC’s democracy. It is no exaggeration to say that these members of the Central Election Committee are the executioners of free and fair elections.

The ruling party has violated democratic principles by manipulating the Central Election Committee, in order to promote its Plebiscite to Join the UN. Over the past several months, the Democratic Progressive Party has illegally diverted government funds into promoting its “Join the UN” campaign. It has coerced the media into cooperating. It has resorted to a wide range of executive orders to coerce the public into signing or supporting its Petition to Join the UN. It has used official office hours to hold private meetings. It has stamped or pasted political slogans on private citizens’ letters and packages, and on government property. It has filled government webpages with Join the UN propaganda. It has committed all sorts of violations of administrative neutrality. It has violated its obligation to behave like public servants, with a sense of propriety. Its sins truly are too many to enumerate.

The ruling party has turned its back on democratic ideals. The opposition parties and media have not been remiss. They have pointed out the ruling party’s wrongdoings and harshly criticized it. But the ruling party has reacted to such criticisms and accusations as if they were Red Guards. Whenever any member of the public faults the Plebiscite to Join the UN for its violations of administrative neutrality or electoral neutrality, the ruling party immediately unleashes its official government media attack dogs upon them. The first thing they invariably do is change the subject. The very next thing they do is accuse any media that uphold media freedom as “pro reunification.” They beatify themselves, depicting themselves as nativist defenders of the sacred soil of Taiwan. They use such simplistic dichotomies as cover for the violence they have done to democratic values in the name of the Plebiscite to Join the UN. The balloting procedure affects only the polling station process. Yet the ruling DPP’s talking heads began ranting that any ballots cast by means of the two stage voting process would be declared invalid, that any unrest must be put down, and that it may be necessary to impose martial law. What sort of insane logic is this?

Opposition party criticisms regarding violations of administrative neutrality and electoral neutrality are reduced to struggles over reunification vs. independence, love for Taiwan vs. lack of love for Taiwan, nativist sentiment vs. non-nativist or even anti-nativist sentiment. As a consequence, the ruling DPP’s thuggish and arbitrary behavior, becomes a necessary evil for these self-styled “lovers of Taiwan.” Any criticisms leveled against them, are turned into nitpicking by those who are “selling out Taiwan.” These “public servants” have sundered, divided, and hoodwinked their nominal bosses, “We, the People.” Frankly, the political atmosphere on Taiwan reminds one of the Chinese Communist Party’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.”

Chen Shui-bian is not averse to declaring martial law, to nullifying the results of any two stage balloting procedures, to postponing the election, or resorting to other forms of intimidation. Leave aside the fact that Chen Shui-bian once swore he “absolutely, positively would not declare martial law within the duration of his term. Everyone on Taiwan has the right to ask: Is this the way a democratically elected leader ought to be talking? Is this the way a political party that claims to believe in democracy ought to be thinking? This year is the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law. The DPP has long attempted to claim exclusive credit for the lifting of martial law. Now their own party chairman is publicly threatening to impose martial law upon citizens of the Republic of China. Why? Merely because certain counties and municipalities refused to knuckle under to the ruling regime’s will regarding balloting procedures. Even authoritarian regimes don’t have the chutzpah to impose martial law on such a flimsy pretext. Yet Chen Shui-bian blurted it right out. Even more shockingly, Chen Shui-bian is planning to declare the result of a democratically held election invalid. In other words, after voters of 2/3 of Taiwan’s counties and municipalities exercise their right to vote, Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party intend to declare their votes invalid. To paraphrase an infamous DPP political ad, “no matter how barbaric one might be,” and no matter how little the voters’ ballots might figure in one’s hearts, such madness is intolerable.

Our hearts are heavy leveling such harsh criticisms against the ruling party. Taiwan is our home, our only home. However painful, we must point out that any behavior that violates the principle of democracy for the sake of election victories, inflicts harm upon Taiwan. Democratic Progressive Party political figures have long mouthed slogans such as: “Elections are fleeting, democracy is forever” or “[So and so] may lose, but Taiwan must not lose.” Today, their hypocrisy grates on the ears. We issue a stern warning to individuals of conscience within the DPP, if any. Whether the DPP will lose next year’s election we don’t know. But if you refuse to speak out, yet again, Taiwan’s democracy surely will lose. We issue a stern warning to all politicians. ROC citizens’ eyes are wide open. You may undermine Taiwan’s democracy by resorting to deception. But the people will not allow you to win the upcoming elections. Finally, we appeal to everyone on Taiwan, treasure and defend our democratic ideals. Courageously protest, spurn, and resist any anti-democratic behavior. Only by defending democracy can we prevail against the reactionary currents of Taiwan’s own Cultural Revolution.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.26
請正視台灣日漸升高的反民主氛圍
中時社論

　面對北市與泛藍執政縣市堅持兩階段領投票，陳水扁昨晚宣稱他正在慎重思考有人建議的四項方案，包括，宣布戒嚴、兩階段公投縣市選舉無效、撤銷泛藍縣市選委會主委重新指派，甚至由中央選委會宣布延後選舉，等說好之後再投票。如果陳水扁這些語言不是「信口開河」，那麼我們真的要呼籲台灣所有有識之士，千萬別讓台灣的民主根基毀在他一個人手上！更千萬別讓已邁向民主的台灣，走回威權戒嚴的回頭路！

　事實上，最近台灣的「反民主」氛圍，正在日漸升高，已經危及到台灣整個民主體質。要知道，若干縣市會堅持採取兩階段投票，主要是為抗議中選會違反基於祕密投票與選務中立，結果竟引來行政院、內政部、中選會、法務部等單位聯合召開記者會，揚言要對採取兩階段領票的選務人員逕行懲處，甚至以刑罰、退休金之有無做要脅。執政黨為了衝高公投領票率而採行爭議極大的領票方式已經是極為粗暴，如今竟還要用刑罰與行政懲處的手段脅迫本應中立的公教選務人員配合其粗暴，簡直就是野蠻。在台灣已經解嚴廿年之後，一個號稱愛鄉土的政黨，用這等不尊重人民頭家的方式肆行操弄選舉，真的是令有識之士痛心。

　早在數月之前，民進黨就為阻擋中央選委會的法制化與合理化，在立法院多次干擾議事，甚至封鎖議場、大打出手。泛藍所提的中選會組織法可能不理想，但絕對要用理性的方式討論，而非以粗野的方式阻止其討論。事後看來，這些粗野、反民主的行為，似乎都是在為今日執政黨操控中選會做準備。中央選委會理應是個客觀、中立、保障選舉公平運作、維護民主核心價值的機構，但是今日民進黨所主控的若干中選會委員，一個個都像是不知民主價值為何物的化外之民，甘為特定政黨之狹隘目的，而出賣自己的靈魂與良知。以今日情勢觀之，若說民進黨是蹂躪台灣民主的政黨、說中選會若干委員是摧毀選舉公平的劊子手，似乎並不為過。

　此外，執政黨為了拉抬入聯公投，其違背民主原則的手段不只是操控中選會而已。在過去數月之中，民進黨非法挪用法定預算宣傳該黨之入聯活動、壓迫媒體配合行銷、以各種行政手段脅迫民眾連署或支持其公投案、在公務上班時間召開徇私會議、在民眾文件與政府公物上貼標語貼紙、將政府網頁網站濫加入聯文宣連結，其種種違反行政中立、違反人民公僕應有分際的倒行逆施，真的是族繁不及備載。

　面對執政黨這樣悖離民主理念的作為，在野黨不是沒有指責、媒體也不是沒有嚴厲批評，但執政黨對此批評與指責，竟然是以幾近紅衛兵的方式回應。輿論若是指責入聯公投違反行政中立或選務中立，立刻就有御用媒體邀集鷹犬級的名嘴予以回擊。他們一貫的作法，就是先模糊焦點，再一竿子把自由派媒體濫批為統派，把自己神聖化為本土、愛台灣，以這樣的胡亂二分法，去遮掩其種種為入聯公投而扭曲民主價值的作為。無論如何，領票方式只涉及選務流程，但竟有名嘴以幾近瘋狂的語氣主張行兩階段投票的選區一律選舉無效，動亂要弭平，甚至不惜採取戒嚴。這是什麼樣的猖狂邏輯？

　同樣的，對於在野黨有關行政中立與選舉中立的質疑，執政黨也是把一切的批評都歸納為統／獨、愛台／不愛台、本土／反本土的二分法。於是，所有的粗魯蠻橫，似乎都成了這一批自稱愛台者的必要之惡。而一切對他們的質疑，又都變成了賣台者的吹毛求疵。一群人民公僕，竟然把人民頭家撕裂、分化、利用、蒙蔽到這種地步，坦白說，簡直已經有了中共當年「文革」的氛圍。

　如今，陳水扁連不惜宣布戒嚴、兩階段投票無效、延後選舉等的恫嚇都搬出來了，先不必提陳水扁曾做過他任內「絕不會宣布戒嚴」的保證，至少所有台灣人都有權利要問一聲：這該是一個民選領袖該吐出的語言嗎？這該是一個以民主信仰為尚的政黨該有的念頭嗎？今年剛好還是解嚴二十周年，一個幾乎把「解嚴」的功業全攬在自己身上的政黨，他們黨主席竟然公開恫嚇台灣人民要宣布戒嚴，理由只不過是有些縣市在投票程序上不依執政黨的意志而為，這恐怕是連威權國家都不敢有的作為，陳水扁一句話就說出來了！更駭人聽聞的是，陳水扁還意圖要將民主選舉所產生的結果直接宣布無效，換言之，當台灣占有三分之二版圖縣市的選民行使完他們投票權以後，陳水扁或是民進黨可以逕自宣布其為無效，再怎麼野蠻，再怎麼不把台灣人民的選票看在眼裡，也容不得這般胡作非為吧？

　我們今天對執政黨做這麼嚴厲的批評，心情是非常沉重的。台灣是我們的家園，我們唯一的家園。我們要沉痛地指出；任何為求勝選而悖離民主原則的行為，都是對台灣的傷害。民進黨政治人物常在嘴上掛著兩句話：「選舉是一時的、民主是永久的」、「某某人可以輸、台灣卻不能輸」，如今讀來都十分刺耳。我們要正告民進黨內的有識之士，明年的選舉民進黨輸不輸尚未可知，但倘若你們再不仗義執言，台灣的民主就絕對是在慘輸。我們也要正告所有的政客，台灣人民的眼睛是雪亮的；即便你們使出敗壞台灣民主的欺矇手段，人民也不會讓你們贏得一時的選舉。最後，我們也要呼籲所有的台灣人民，珍惜並堅持我們共有的民主理想，勇敢地抗議、唾棄、抵制所有悖離民主原則的作為。唯有我們堅持真正的民主，才能擊潰這一股文革逆流。

Taiwan’s Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound

Taiwan’s Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2007

Our national leaders are in the habit of reminding us that Beijing has a large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, therefore everybody ought to remain vigilant. This is not entirely wrong. But Taiwan’s biggest threat is not necessarily Beijing’s missiles. It is a brain drain that has inflicted a mortal wound upon Taiwan’s competitiveness.

Taiwan is experiencing a brain drain. White collar workers are in a hurry to leave. This is no longer a phenomenon that can be ignored. Most of them leave for mainland China, primarily due to Taiwan’s internal political struggles. Ruling DPP leaders reason that “So what if we revive the economy? That doesn’t mean we’ll get reelected.” Whereupon they continue their ideologically-motivated Closed Door Policy. They allow industry to wither. Young workers can no longer find work, and must leave to survive.

In the past, most countries did not welcome immigrants. They tried to stop them. Now circumstances are different. Now we have Globalization and the Global Village. Now the World is Flat. To be competitive one must have talented people. The countries of the world now compete for the most talented people. They have launched a “Global Talent Hunt.” The nations of the world have one by one revised their immigration policies, and are recruiting foreign students from all over the globe. They offer all sorts of enticements to make them come.

The mainland Chinese economy is growingly rapidly, by double digits every year. It is estimated that next year its total output may surpass Germany’s. It will become the world’s third largest economic entity. Such enormous productivity creates enormous purchasing power. Transnational corporations are all struggling to be the first to profit from a market of 1.3 billion customers. Taiwan’s major corporations have been directly or indirectly entering the mainland. Taiwan’s economy has stagnated due to internal political strife. Businesses have had no choice but to seek refuge on the mainland. At first they tested the waters. Eventually they stayed to sink roots.

Taiwan businesspersons who move to the mainland take personnel along with them. The mainland desperately needs business managers and financial managers who understand global markets. According to Taiwan’s 104 Job Bank, a head-hunting firm, Taiwan businesspersons and mainland businesspersons alike approach them for workers. The Job Bank invariably asks jobseekers a question: “Are you willing to work on the mainland?” Not long ago National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Business Administration surveyed 30 students. Forty percent of them said they were willing to work on the mainland

In fact, many white collar managerial and technical personnel have already moved to the mainland. According to estimates by the Taiwanese Businessmen’s Association, the Shanghai, Suzhou, and Kunshan regions alone have over 500,000 Taiwan businesspersons. If one adds nearby Guangdong, the number approaches 800,000 to 900,000. Naturally this does not include Taiwan talent recruited by mainland businesses.

Taiwan Media Watch conducted a survey. They asked people why they were willing to work on the mainland. Their answers were illuminating:

One. Rapid salary increases. In some years their salary increased 20% to 30%. Approximately 10% of the increase was due to market growth.

Two. Working on the mainland is a simple way of moving toward internationalization.

Three. Taiwan is no longer a link in the global market. Taiwan businesses have no future. Individuals working for Taiwan businesses have no future either.

Four. Working on the mainland is like participating in the Olympics, One is competing with world class competitors. It is both a personal challenge and a learning opportunity.

Many human resource firms and consulting firms have noted that among the economies of the Asian Pacific region, Taiwan’s manpower requirements have been the lowest for five straight years. In October of this year, 100,000 university graduates, including those with masters and doctorates, cannot find work. Therefore the age of those who have gone to the mainland or hope to go to the mainland is getting younger and younger. Now entire families are picking up and moving to the mainland. The children no longer study in foreign schools or bilingual schools. Instead they enroll in local schools. They do so because their future is there. Therefore they feel they must integrate into local society as soon as possible.

Our Ministry of Education recognizes diplomas from third rate universities in the US. But it refuses to recognize diplomas from mainland China’s Beijing University, Qinghua University, and other famous schools. As a result, many students from Taiwan who studied and obtained degrees on the mainland, are only able to work on the mainland.

In 1949 Nationalist troops were routed in the Battle of Xu Bang. The government retreated to Taiwan. Acting General Tu Yu-ming was captured by Chen Yi’s troops. He was released after “Successful Thought Reform” in a Chinese Communist Party POW camp. On May 26, 1960, he was invited to a banquet held by Premier Zhou Enlai and Vice-Premier Chen Yi in honor of British Field Marshal Montgomery. While introducing Tu Yu-ming, Zhou Enlai said Tu once fought a battle with Chen Yi. Montgomery asked: Who won? Zhou answered: Chen Yi won. Montgomery asked Tu: How many troops did you command during that campaign? Tu answered: One million. Montgomery said: Anyone with a million troops under his command should not have lost. Tu explained: He had two million. Because my one million defected to his side.

This story is not necessarily true. But it is certainly something to think about.

人才流失是台灣競爭力的致命傷
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.22 03:34 am

國家領導人經常提醒民眾，對岸有多少多少顆飛彈正瞄準台灣，要大家提高警覺。話也許沒有錯，但台灣面臨的最大威脅未必是對岸的飛彈，而是人才流失對台灣競爭力造成的致命傷。

今天的台灣，腦力外移，白領階級出走，已是不容忽視的現象，其中又以去中國大陸者為多。主要是因為台灣內鬥不止，政客認為「把經濟搞好也不一定選得上」，於是繼續以意識形態鎖國，繼續讓產業萎縮；中青年找不到工作，只好外逃尋生路。

在過去，多數國家都不歡喜外來移民，設限阻止。現在不一樣了，全球化，地球村，世界是平的，有人才而後有競爭力，各國競自延攬人才，一場「全球人才爭奪戰」於焉展開。各國紛紛修改移民政策，並廣納外國留學生，以種種優惠條件，歡迎人才來歸。

中國大陸經濟發展快速，每年都以兩位數字成長。預估明年生產總值將可超過德國，成為世界第三大經濟體。由於這樣的產能及相應的消費力，全世界的跨國企業，都爭先到這個十三億人口的大市場尋求商機。而台灣的大企業更多已直接或迂迴進入大陸，再加上台灣因政治內耗而經濟停滯，使企業界在無從選擇下不得不「投奔」對岸。他們從初期的「試探」，到最後留下去「深耕」。

台商到大陸發展，要帶幹部過去。大陸自身對有國際觀的經理人才和金融人才也極端缺乏。據台灣一○四人力銀行說，台商和大陸商家都向它要人。人力銀行徵才會提一個問題：「你願去大陸工作嗎？」台大商學所不久前向三十名學生調查，有四成學生表示不排除去大陸工作。

實際上，很多白領階級的主管及技術人員已去了大陸。據台商協會的估計，單在上海與蘇州、昆山一帶的台籍人士就超過五十萬，再加上廣東附近的，應接近八十到九十萬之間。當然，這還不包括大陸企業聘請去的台灣人才。

台灣媒體曾做過調查，問這些人為什麼願去大陸工作，答案主要有以下這些：

一、薪水增加快，有年增百分之二十到三十者；其中百分之十因市場成長而來。

二、去大陸工作是跨向國際化最簡單的一步。

三、台灣已不是世界市場的一環，台灣企業沒有前途，個人未來自然也沒有發展。

四、到大陸工作像參加奧運，一起競爭的全是世界高手，對自己是挑戰，也是學習。

多家人力資源和顧問公司都觀察到，亞太各國的人力需求，台灣連五季墊底，今年十月底有十萬大學畢業生和碩、博士找不到工作，因此已去大陸和願去大陸工作者的年齡層，有日漸下降的趨勢。尤其值得注意的，現在很多人都是舉家遷往大陸，孩子也不再只選擇外國學校或雙語學校，而是進入當地學校就讀。這些人的理由是：既然要在當地發展，就要盡早融入當地社會。

我們的教育部承認美國的三流大學，但不承認中國大陸的北大、清華等名校的學歷，眾多到大陸讀書而取得學位的台灣學生，只有被迫「楚才晉用」。

一九四九年「徐蚌會戰」國軍大敗，政府被迫遷到台灣。實際指揮作戰的杜聿明將軍被陳毅軍隊俘虜，在中共戰俘營「改造成功」後獲釋。一九六○年五月二十六日應邀參加總理周恩來和副總理陳毅招待英國蒙哥馬利元帥的宴會。周恩來介紹杜聿明說：他跟陳毅打過戰。蒙問：誰贏了？周答：陳毅贏了。蒙問杜：那次戰役你有多少軍隊？杜答：一百萬。蒙說：擁有一百萬軍隊的統帥是不應該被打敗的。杜指著陳說：他有兩百萬人，因為我的一百萬都跑到他那裡去了。

這故事的內容未必全為真實，但這故事給人啟發，更給人警惕。

Taiwan’s Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound

Taiwan’s Brain Drain: A Mortal Wound
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 22, 2007

Our national leaders are in the habit of reminding us that Beijing has a large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, therefore everybody ought to remain vigilant. This is not entirely wrong. But Taiwan’s biggest threat is not necessarily Beijing’s missiles. It is a brain drain that has inflicted a mortal wound upon Taiwan’s competitiveness.

Taiwan is experiencing a brain drain. White collar workers are in a hurry to leave. This is no longer a phenomenon that can be ignored. Most of them leave for mainland China, primarily due to Taiwan’s internal political struggles. Ruling DPP leaders reason that “So what if we revive the economy? That doesn’t mean we’ll get reelected.” Whereupon they continue their ideologically-motivated Closed Door Policy. They allow industry to wither. Young workers can no longer find work, and must leave to survive.

In the past, most countries did not welcome immigrants. They tried to stop them. Now circumstances are different. Now we have Globalization and the Global Village. Now the World is Flat. To be competitive one must have talented people. The countries of the world now compete for the most talented people. They have launched a “Global Talent Hunt.” The nations of the world have one by one revised their immigration policies, and are recruiting foreign students from all over the globe. They offer all sorts of enticements to make them come.

The mainland Chinese economy is growingly rapidly, by double digits every year. It is estimated that next year its total output may surpass Germany’s. It will become the world’s third largest economic entity. Such enormous productivity creates enormous purchasing power. Transnational corporations are all struggling to be the first to profit from a market of 1.3 billion customers. Taiwan’s major corporations have been directly or indirectly entering the mainland. Taiwan’s economy has stagnated due to internal political strife. Businesses have had no choice but to seek refuge on the mainland. At first they tested the waters. Eventually they stayed to sink roots.

Taiwan businesspersons who move to the mainland take personnel along with them. The mainland desperately needs business managers and financial managers who understand global markets. According to Taiwan’s 104 Job Bank, a head-hunting firm, Taiwan businesspersons and mainland businesspersons alike approach them for workers. The Job Bank invariably asks jobseekers a question: “Are you willing to work on the mainland?” Not long ago National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Business Administration surveyed 30 students. Forty percent of them said they were willing to work on the mainland

In fact, many white collar managerial and technical personnel have already moved to the mainland. According to estimates by the Taiwanese Businessmen’s Association, the Shanghai, Suzhou, and Kunshan regions alone have over 500,000 Taiwan businesspersons. If one adds nearby Guangdong, the number approaches 800,000 to 900,000. Naturally this does not include Taiwan talent recruited by mainland businesses.

Taiwan Media Watch conducted a survey. They asked people why they were willing to work on the mainland. Their answers were illuminating:

One. Rapid salary increases. In some years their salary increased 20% to 30%. Approximately 10% of the increase was due to market growth.

Two. Working on the mainland is a simple way of moving toward internationalization.

Three. Taiwan is no longer a link in the global market. Taiwan businesses have no future. Individuals working for Taiwan businesses have no future either.

Four. Working on the mainland is like participating in the Olympics, One is competing with world class competitors. It is both a personal challenge and a learning opportunity.

Many human resource firms and consulting firms have noted that among the economies of the Asian Pacific region, Taiwan’s manpower requirements have been the lowest for five straight years. In October of this year, 100,000 university graduates, including those with masters and doctorates, cannot find work. Therefore the age of those who have gone to the mainland or hope to go to the mainland is getting younger and younger. Now entire families are picking up and moving to the mainland. The children no longer study in foreign schools or bilingual schools. Instead they enroll in local schools. They do so because their future is there. Therefore they feel they must integrate into local society as soon as possible.

Our Ministry of Education recognizes diplomas from third rate universities in the US. But it refuses to recognize diplomas from mainland China’s Beijing University, Qinghua University, and other famous schools. As a result, many students from Taiwan who studied and obtained degrees on the mainland, are only able to work on the mainland.

In 1949 Nationalist troops were routed in the Battle of Xu Bang. The government retreated to Taiwan. Acting General Tu Yu-ming was captured by Chen Yi’s troops. He was released after “Successful Thought Reform” in a Chinese Communist Party POW camp. On May 26, 1960, he was invited to a banquet held by Premier Zhou Enlai and Vice-Premier Chen Yi in honor of British Field Marshal Montgomery. While introducing Tu Yu-ming, Zhou Enlai said Tu once fought a battle with Chen Yi. Montgomery asked: Who won? Zhou answered: Chen Yi won. Montgomery asked Tu: How many troops did you command during that campaign? Tu answered: One million. Montgomery said: Anyone with a million troops under his command should not have lost. Tu explained: He had two million. Because my one million defected to his side.

This story is not necessarily true. But it is certainly something to think about.

人才流失是台灣競爭力的致命傷
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.11.22 03:34 am

國家領導人經常提醒民眾，對岸有多少多少顆飛彈正瞄準台灣，要大家提高警覺。話也許沒有錯，但台灣面臨的最大威脅未必是對岸的飛彈，而是人才流失對台灣競爭力造成的致命傷。

今天的台灣，腦力外移，白領階級出走，已是不容忽視的現象，其中又以去中國大陸者為多。主要是因為台灣內鬥不止，政客認為「把經濟搞好也不一定選得上」，於是繼續以意識形態鎖國，繼續讓產業萎縮；中青年找不到工作，只好外逃尋生路。

在過去，多數國家都不歡喜外來移民，設限阻止。現在不一樣了，全球化，地球村，世界是平的，有人才而後有競爭力，各國競自延攬人才，一場「全球人才爭奪戰」於焉展開。各國紛紛修改移民政策，並廣納外國留學生，以種種優惠條件，歡迎人才來歸。

中國大陸經濟發展快速，每年都以兩位數字成長。預估明年生產總值將可超過德國，成為世界第三大經濟體。由於這樣的產能及相應的消費力，全世界的跨國企業，都爭先到這個十三億人口的大市場尋求商機。而台灣的大企業更多已直接或迂迴進入大陸，再加上台灣因政治內耗而經濟停滯，使企業界在無從選擇下不得不「投奔」對岸。他們從初期的「試探」，到最後留下去「深耕」。

台商到大陸發展，要帶幹部過去。大陸自身對有國際觀的經理人才和金融人才也極端缺乏。據台灣一○四人力銀行說，台商和大陸商家都向它要人。人力銀行徵才會提一個問題：「你願去大陸工作嗎？」台大商學所不久前向三十名學生調查，有四成學生表示不排除去大陸工作。

實際上，很多白領階級的主管及技術人員已去了大陸。據台商協會的估計，單在上海與蘇州、昆山一帶的台籍人士就超過五十萬，再加上廣東附近的，應接近八十到九十萬之間。當然，這還不包括大陸企業聘請去的台灣人才。

台灣媒體曾做過調查，問這些人為什麼願去大陸工作，答案主要有以下這些：

一、薪水增加快，有年增百分之二十到三十者；其中百分之十因市場成長而來。

二、去大陸工作是跨向國際化最簡單的一步。

三、台灣已不是世界市場的一環，台灣企業沒有前途，個人未來自然也沒有發展。

四、到大陸工作像參加奧運，一起競爭的全是世界高手，對自己是挑戰，也是學習。

多家人力資源和顧問公司都觀察到，亞太各國的人力需求，台灣連五季墊底，今年十月底有十萬大學畢業生和碩、博士找不到工作，因此已去大陸和願去大陸工作者的年齡層，有日漸下降的趨勢。尤其值得注意的，現在很多人都是舉家遷往大陸，孩子也不再只選擇外國學校或雙語學校，而是進入當地學校就讀。這些人的理由是：既然要在當地發展，就要盡早融入當地社會。

我們的教育部承認美國的三流大學，但不承認中國大陸的北大、清華等名校的學歷，眾多到大陸讀書而取得學位的台灣學生，只有被迫「楚才晉用」。

一九四九年「徐蚌會戰」國軍大敗，政府被迫遷到台灣。實際指揮作戰的杜聿明將軍被陳毅軍隊俘虜，在中共戰俘營「改造成功」後獲釋。一九六○年五月二十六日應邀參加總理周恩來和副總理陳毅招待英國蒙哥馬利元帥的宴會。周恩來介紹杜聿明說：他跟陳毅打過戰。蒙問：誰贏了？周答：陳毅贏了。蒙問杜：那次戰役你有多少軍隊？杜答：一百萬。蒙說：擁有一百萬軍隊的統帥是不應該被打敗的。杜指著陳說：他有兩百萬人，因為我的一百萬都跑到他那裡去了。

這故事的內容未必全為真實，但這故事給人啟發，更給人警惕。