Are Both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen Guilty of Treason?

Are Both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen Guilty of Treason?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 30, 2008

President Ma Ying-jeou said, “cross-strait relations are not state to state relations, but a special kind of relationship.” Tsai Ing-wen denounced Ma’s statement as “treason.” This is ironic, because the Democratic Progressive Party’s “swift rectification of names, authoring of a new constitution” and “establishment of a Nation of Taiwan” have long been considered treason.
Are both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are guilty of treason?
This dispute underscores just how much confusion there is about the nation’s identity.

Most people hold one of three positions on our nation’s identity. One. The Republic of China. Two. One China, Different Interpretations. Three. One Nation Each Side. The problem with these three positions is that none of them is entirely satisfactory. Adherents of one position often accuse adherents of another of having blind spots. But they themselves have similar blind spots. Taiwan independence advocates are an obvious example. They long to to overthrow the Republic of China, but at the same time are incapable of establishing a “Nation of Taiwan.” The merits of the three positions on national identity can only be evaluated on a relative basis. None of them is entirely satisfactory. This is the source of the turmoil. This is why both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen’s positions can be regarded as “treason.” Let’s examine the three positions.

One. The Republic of China. The “One China Constitution” and “Articles on Cross-Strait Relations” constitute the basic framework of the Republic of China. Within this framework, the Republic of China is supreme. The two sides are referred to as the “Mainland Region” and the “Taiwan Region.” Therefore, when President Ma refers to the two sides as the “Taiwan Region” and the “Mainland Region,” in strict adherence to the One China Constitution he is hardly guilty of “treason.” On the contrary, he is adopting the hardest possible line in upholding the sovereignty of the Republic of China. When Ma Ying-jeou referred to cross-Strait relations as “not state-to-state relations” he was accused of denying that we are a nation. But under the framework of the One China Constitution, we are the Republic of China. We are defined by the Preamble of the Constitutional Amendments and the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations. The two sides are constitutionally defined as the “Taiwan Region” and the “Mainland Region.” Cross-Strait relations are constitutionally defined as “not state-to-state relations.” Under this framework, only the Republic of China has legitimacy. Only the Republic of China exists. The Green Camp may denounce this as “Republic of China fundamentalism.” But the fact remains it is the constitutional basis for all current cross-Strait relations. Ma Ying-jeou’s statement violate neither the spirit nor the letter of the One China Constitution. He was merely “Politically Incorrect” in his manner of expression. He was too “fundamentalist.” He deviated too much from “One China, Different Expressions” and some consider his position infeasible in the long run.

Two. One China, Different Interpretations. This position has leaves open two possibilities. One. The “One China” is something that transcends both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. It is a third entity that provides a conceptual roof over both. This is the heart of the Ma administration’s policy. Two. Another version of “One China, Different Interpretations” is “I am the Republic of China, you are the People’s Republic of China.” This version comes close to being “Two Chinas.” Beijing is unlikely to accept this version of “One China, Different Interpretations.”

Three. One Nation Each Side. This position advocates either Two Chinas or One China, One Taiwan. It also advocates the Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution. When the DPP drafted its Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, it recognized the Republic of China. It left open the possibility of Two Chinas or One China, Different Interpretations. But the DPP’s current position on national identity is its Resolution for a Normal Nation. In other words, it advocates the Rectification of Names, the Authoring of a New Constitution, and the founding of a Nation of Taiwan. These all have as their goal the overthrown of the Republic of China.

When we examine the three positions, we see the irony of the dispute between Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou. Ma Ying-jeou’s “not state-to-state relations” stance in fact upholds the Original Intent of the Republic of China and the One China Constitution. It could even be considered a “Pre One China” position. It could even be considered the most loyal of all positions one can have vis a vis the Republic of China. Yet Tsai Ing-wen denounced it as “treason.” By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have yet to break free of calls for a Resolution for a Normal Nation, for the Rectification of Names, and for the establisment of a Nation of Taiwan. In other words, they remain mired in treason against the Republic of China. Their dilemma underscores just how confused they are about the nation’s identity.

Ma Ying-jeou has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Actually Tsai Ing-wen’s accusations of “treason” are not the problem. The problem is Ma unwittingly deviated from “One China, Different Interpretations.” The result was a clear case of upholding Original Intent was perversely characterized as “treason.” Had Ma Ying-jeou reiterated that “One China means the Republic of China,” he would have stepped on another landmine. After all, when it comes to a nation’s identity, a miss is as good as a mile. The “One China Constitution” is not particularly controversial. But “not state-to-state cross-strait relations” is, even though it may merely be the other side of the same coin. Championing “Taiwan’s sovereignty” is not particularly controversial. But the “Founding of a Nation of Taiwan” is, even though it may merely be a more explicit expression of the same sentiment. Ma Ying-jeou did his best to clarify the meaning of a “One China Constitution.” Instead he touched off a storm of controversy. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen did her best to muddy the meaning of “Taiwan’s sovereignty.” But that hardly made it less controversial.

Is there no Third Way for cross-Strait relations? More to the point, would Beijing agree to any Third Way for “One China, Different Interpretations?”

Are Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou both guilty of “treason?” On a more serious note, the dispute underscores just how much confusion prevails about the nation’s identity. Ironically, this war of words between the Republic of China and the Nation of Taiwan does nothing to promote unity and consensus on Taiwan.

馬英九與蔡英文都是叛國？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.30 03:02 am

蔡英文說，馬英九總統所稱的「兩岸屬非國與國的特別關係」，幾乎已到「叛國」的程度；諷刺的是，民進黨迄今所持「及早正名制憲」與「台灣國」的立場，亦被認為是「叛國」。

莫非馬英九及蔡英文都是叛國？這顯示了國家論述的混濁與難解。

關於國家定位的論述，大約可分作三個類型。一、中華民國；二、一中各表；三、一邊一國。問題在於：沒有一種類型能夠自我完足；當一種類型批評另一種類型有 盲點時，批評者所持的那種類型亦有缺陷。最明顯的例子是：台獨要推翻中華民國，但台灣國也活不成。因此，只能以相對的觀點來評比上述三種類型的國家定位， 無法建立一個完美無缺的論述。這正是一切紛擾之所由生，也是馬英九及蔡英文皆可能被視為「叛國」的理由。以下略論三種類型：

一、中華民國：基本架構是「一中憲法」及《兩岸關係條例》。此一論述以中華民國為主體，將兩岸稱作「大陸地區」與「台灣地區」。因此，馬總統若依據「一中 憲法」，視兩岸為「台灣地區／大陸地區」，因而稱「兩岸屬非國與國關係」，就中華民國立場而言，非但並未「叛國」，反而是將「中華民國」推向極致。當馬英 九說「非國與國關係」，被指為自我否定為「國」；但若在「一中憲法」的架構下，要堅持「中華民國」的立場，即必須依憲法增修條文序言及《兩岸關係條例》， 將兩岸視作「台灣地區／大陸地區」的「非國與國關係」；因為，在此一架構下，唯一的「國」就是「中華民國」，這可謂是「中華民國基本教義派」，其實亦是現 今兩岸一切實務的運作基礎。馬英九的說法並未違反「一中憲法」，只是他的表述方式顯然是「政治不正確」，也太過「基本教義」，且偏離了「一中各表」；再 者，此一架構的終局可行性亦被質疑。

二、一中各表：此一架構可有兩種想像：一、「一中」是超越中華民國及中華人民共和國的「第三概念」或「屋頂理論」；這是馬政府的中心政策。二、另一種「一中各表」，就是我說我的中華民國，你說你的中華人民共和國；這已趨近「兩個中國」，難度頗高。

三、一邊一國：兩個中國、台灣國、正名制憲，皆屬此一範疇。民進黨在《台灣前途決議文》時代，承認「中華民國」，有可能引伸為「兩個中國」或「一中各表」；但民進黨如今的國家定位則是《正常國家決議文》，亦即正名制憲及台灣國，皆是以顛覆中華民國為目標。

略論以上三種類型之後，可以看出馬英九與蔡英文之爭議的弔詭。馬英九的「非國與國關係」，其實是最「中華民國基本教義」及「一中憲法」的論述，甚至亦是 「前一中各表」的論述，可謂最忠於中華民國，卻被蔡英文指為「叛國」。相對而言，蔡英文及民進黨，迄今仍未跳脫《正常國家決議文》、正名制憲及台灣國的綑 綁，亦即自己亦陷「叛國（中華民國）」的情境。這樣的弔詭，豈非顯示了國家論述的混濁與難解？

馬英九這次捅到馬蜂窩，問題其實不在蔡英文所指的「叛國」，而是他在不知不覺間偏離了「一中各表」的政策基調。因而，明明是「基本教義」，卻被指為「叛 國」；但馬英九若重申「一個中國就是中華民國」，必又陷入另一層次的爭議。畢竟，國家定位的論述，失諸毫釐、差以千里。例如，若說「一中憲法」，較無異 聲；但若說「兩岸屬非國與國關係」，其實亦是一體兩面，引致議論。又如，若說：維護「台灣主權」，較無異聲；但若說要「建立台灣國」，其實也只是由表入裡 而已，即生爭議。馬英九是想把「一中憲法」說清楚一點，卻惹出了爭議；相對而言，蔡英文只是不想也不敢把「台灣主權」說清楚罷了，難道就沒有爭議？

真正的問題在於：兩岸有沒有第三條路可以走？以及，北京是否同意「一中各表」是第三條路？

馬英九和蔡英文都「叛國」？從嚴肅面看，這顯示了國家定位的混濁與難解；但從諷刺面看，這豈不又只是一場中華民國與台灣國的口水戰，對促進台灣的團結與共識有何補益？

Are Both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen Guilty of Treason?

Are Both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen Guilty of Treason?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 30, 2008


President Ma Ying-jeou said, “cross-strait relations are not state to state relations, but a special kind of relationship.” Tsai Ing-wen denounced Ma’s statement as “treason.” This is ironic, because the Democratic Progressive Party’s “swift rectification of names, authoring of a new constitution” and “establishment of a Nation of Taiwan” have long been considered treason.
Are both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen are guilty of treason?
This dispute underscores just how much confusion there is about the nation’s identity.

Most people hold one of three positions on our nation’s identity. One. The Republic of China. Two. One China, Different Interpretations. Three. One Nation Each Side. The problem with these three positions is that none of them is entirely satisfactory. Adherents of one position often accuse adherents of another of having blind spots. But they themselves have similar blind spots. Taiwan independence advocates are an obvious example. They long to to overthrow the Republic of China, but at the same time are incapable of establishing a “Nation of Taiwan.” The merits of the three positions on national identity can only be evaluated on a relative basis. None of them is entirely satisfactory. This is the source of the turmoil. This is why both Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen’s positions can be regarded as “treason.” Let’s examine the three positions.

One. The Republic of China. The “One China Constitution” and “Articles on Cross-Strait Relations” constitute the basic framework of the Republic of China. Within this framework, the Republic of China is supreme. The two sides are referred to as the “Mainland Region” and the “Taiwan Region.” Therefore, when President Ma refers to the two sides as the “Taiwan Region” and the “Mainland Region,” in strict adherence to the One China Constitution he is hardly guilty of “treason.” On the contrary, he is adopting the hardest possible line in upholding the sovereignty of the Republic of China. When Ma Ying-jeou referred to cross-Strait relations as “not state-to-state relations” he was accused of denying that we are a nation. But under the framework of the One China Constitution, we are the Republic of China. We are defined by the Preamble of the Constitutional Amendments and the Articles on Cross-Strait Relations. The two sides are constitutionally defined as the “Taiwan Region” and the “Mainland Region.” Cross-Strait relations are constitutionally defined as “not state-to-state relations.” Under this framework, only the Republic of China has legitimacy. Only the Republic of China exists. The Green Camp may denounce this as “Republic of China fundamentalism.” But the fact remains it is the constitutional basis for all current cross-Strait relations. Ma Ying-jeou’s statement violate neither the spirit nor the letter of the One China Constitution. He was merely “Politically Incorrect” in his manner of expression. He was too “fundamentalist.” He deviated too much from “One China, Different Expressions” and some consider his position infeasible in the long run.

Two. One China, Different Interpretations. This position has leaves open two possibilities. One. The “One China” is something that transcends both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. It is a third entity that provides a conceptual roof over both. This is the heart of the Ma administration’s policy. Two. Another version of “One China, Different Interpretations” is “I am the Republic of China, you are the People’s Republic of China.” This version comes close to being “Two Chinas.” Beijing is unlikely to accept this version of “One China, Different Interpretations.”

Three. One Nation Each Side. This position advocates either Two Chinas or One China, One Taiwan. It also advocates the Rectification of Names and the Authoring of a New Constitution. When the DPP drafted its Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, it recognized the Republic of China. It left open the possibility of Two Chinas or One China, Different Interpretations. But the DPP’s current position on national identity is its Resolution for a Normal Nation. In other words, it advocates the Rectification of Names, the Authoring of a New Constitution, and the founding of a Nation of Taiwan. These all have as their goal the overthrown of the Republic of China.

When we examine the three positions, we see the irony of the dispute between Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou. Ma Ying-jeou’s “not state-to-state relations” stance in fact upholds the Original Intent of the Republic of China and the One China Constitution. It could even be considered a “Pre One China” position. It could even be considered the most loyal of all positions one can have vis a vis the Republic of China. Yet Tsai Ing-wen denounced it as “treason.” By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP have yet to break free of calls for a Resolution for a Normal Nation, for the Rectification of Names, and for the establisment of a Nation of Taiwan. In other words, they remain mired in treason against the Republic of China. Their dilemma underscores just how confused they are about the nation’s identity.

Ma Ying-jeou has stirred up a hornet’s nest. Actually Tsai Ing-wen’s accusations of “treason” are not the problem. The problem is Ma unwittingly deviated from “One China, Different Interpretations.” The result was a clear case of upholding Original Intent was perversely characterized as “treason.” Had Ma Ying-jeou reiterated that “One China means the Republic of China,” he would have stepped on another landmine. After all, when it comes to a nation’s identity, a miss is as good as a mile. The “One China Constitution” is not particularly controversial. But “not state-to-state cross-strait relations” is, even though it may merely be the other side of the same coin. Championing “Taiwan’s sovereignty” is not particularly controversial. But the “Founding of a Nation of Taiwan” is, even though it may merely be a more explicit expression of the same sentiment. Ma Ying-jeou did his best to clarify the meaning of a “One China Constitution.” Instead he touched off a storm of controversy. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen did her best to muddy the meaning of “Taiwan’s sovereignty.” But that hardly made it less controversial.

Is there no Third Way for cross-Strait relations? More to the point, would Beijing agree to any Third Way for “One China, Different Interpretations?”

Are Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou both guilty of “treason?” On a more serious note, the dispute underscores just how much confusion prevails about the nation’s identity. Ironically, this war of words between the Republic of China and the Nation of Taiwan does nothing to promote unity and consensus on Taiwan.

馬英九與蔡英文都是叛國？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.30 03:02 am

蔡英文說，馬英九總統所稱的「兩岸屬非國與國的特別關係」，幾乎已到「叛國」的程度；諷刺的是，民進黨迄今所持「及早正名制憲」與「台灣國」的立場，亦被認為是「叛國」。

莫非馬英九及蔡英文都是叛國？這顯示了國家論述的混濁與難解。

關於國家定位的論述，大約可分作三個類型。一、中華民國；二、一中各表；三、一邊一國。問題在於：沒有一種類型能夠自我完足；當一種類型批評另一種類型有 盲點時，批評者所持的那種類型亦有缺陷。最明顯的例子是：台獨要推翻中華民國，但台灣國也活不成。因此，只能以相對的觀點來評比上述三種類型的國家定位， 無法建立一個完美無缺的論述。這正是一切紛擾之所由生，也是馬英九及蔡英文皆可能被視為「叛國」的理由。以下略論三種類型：

一、中華民國：基本架構是「一中憲法」及《兩岸關係條例》。此一論述以中華民國為主體，將兩岸稱作「大陸地區」與「台灣地區」。因此，馬總統若依據「一中 憲法」，視兩岸為「台灣地區／大陸地區」，因而稱「兩岸屬非國與國關係」，就中華民國立場而言，非但並未「叛國」，反而是將「中華民國」推向極致。當馬英 九說「非國與國關係」，被指為自我否定為「國」；但若在「一中憲法」的架構下，要堅持「中華民國」的立場，即必須依憲法增修條文序言及《兩岸關係條例》， 將兩岸視作「台灣地區／大陸地區」的「非國與國關係」；因為，在此一架構下，唯一的「國」就是「中華民國」，這可謂是「中華民國基本教義派」，其實亦是現 今兩岸一切實務的運作基礎。馬英九的說法並未違反「一中憲法」，只是他的表述方式顯然是「政治不正確」，也太過「基本教義」，且偏離了「一中各表」；再 者，此一架構的終局可行性亦被質疑。

二、一中各表：此一架構可有兩種想像：一、「一中」是超越中華民國及中華人民共和國的「第三概念」或「屋頂理論」；這是馬政府的中心政策。二、另一種「一中各表」，就是我說我的中華民國，你說你的中華人民共和國；這已趨近「兩個中國」，難度頗高。

三、一邊一國：兩個中國、台灣國、正名制憲，皆屬此一範疇。民進黨在《台灣前途決議文》時代，承認「中華民國」，有可能引伸為「兩個中國」或「一中各表」；但民進黨如今的國家定位則是《正常國家決議文》，亦即正名制憲及台灣國，皆是以顛覆中華民國為目標。

略論以上三種類型之後，可以看出馬英九與蔡英文之爭議的弔詭。馬英九的「非國與國關係」，其實是最「中華民國基本教義」及「一中憲法」的論述，甚至亦是 「前一中各表」的論述，可謂最忠於中華民國，卻被蔡英文指為「叛國」。相對而言，蔡英文及民進黨，迄今仍未跳脫《正常國家決議文》、正名制憲及台灣國的綑 綁，亦即自己亦陷「叛國（中華民國）」的情境。這樣的弔詭，豈非顯示了國家論述的混濁與難解？

馬英九這次捅到馬蜂窩，問題其實不在蔡英文所指的「叛國」，而是他在不知不覺間偏離了「一中各表」的政策基調。因而，明明是「基本教義」，卻被指為「叛 國」；但馬英九若重申「一個中國就是中華民國」，必又陷入另一層次的爭議。畢竟，國家定位的論述，失諸毫釐、差以千里。例如，若說「一中憲法」，較無異 聲；但若說「兩岸屬非國與國關係」，其實亦是一體兩面，引致議論。又如，若說：維護「台灣主權」，較無異聲；但若說要「建立台灣國」，其實也只是由表入裡 而已，即生爭議。馬英九是想把「一中憲法」說清楚一點，卻惹出了爭議；相對而言，蔡英文只是不想也不敢把「台灣主權」說清楚罷了，難道就沒有爭議？

真正的問題在於：兩岸有沒有第三條路可以走？以及，北京是否同意「一中各表」是第三條路？

馬英九和蔡英文都「叛國」？從嚴肅面看，這顯示了國家定位的混濁與難解；但從諷刺面看，這豈不又只是一場中華民國與台灣國的口水戰，對促進台灣的團結與共識有何補益？

The Democratic Progressive Party Should Assume the Role of a Loyal Republic of China Opposition Party

The Democratic Progressive Party Should Assume the Role of a Loyal Republic of China Opposition Party
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2008

September 28 is the 22nd anniversary of the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party. Over the next few days, the Democratic Progressive Party must decide whether to hold a demonstration march over ARATS President Wang Chen Yunlin’s visit to Taiwan.

Chairman Tsai Ing-wen’s position remains unclear. She said that before taking to the streets, the DPP must first make clear what it is protesting. It must then put forth its own opposition party policy proposals. Only then should it take to the streets. In other words, it must first understand why it is protesting before it decides whether it ought to be protesting.

The Democratic Progressive Party has lost power and become the opposition party. The Ma administration has unintentionally provided the DPP with a wide range of issues to complain about. But the Democratic Progressive Party’s efforts have been for naught. It has not received a positive response from the general public. People have their doubts about the KMT. But it does not follow that they trust the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party has been like a squirrel on a treadmill. Lots of energy expended, but no forward movement. Tsai Ing-wen put her finger on the main problem. The Democratic Progressive Party has yet to formulate a new political vision. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has been unable to offer the public a new political vision.

When the Democratic Progressive Party challenges the ruling KMT, it emerges with both guns blazing. But over the past 20 years, the shock has worn off. The Democratic Progressive Party trumpets its defense of “Taiwan’s sovereignty.” But over the past 20 years, the public has developed cobwebs in its ears. The Democratic Progressive Party still has enough strength to organize something like the August 30 protest march. But after 20 years the Democratic Progressive Party’s large scale demonstrations no longer thrill. Such political moves are akin to a squirrel on a treadmill. They no longer have any meaning for the DPP. They no longer have anything to teach Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen just returned from her visit to the United States. When asked if the DPP would hold a demonstration march in October, she replied “March? Didn’t we just have a march?”

Given Chen Yunlin’s visit, the theme of the DPP’s protest march would of course be cross-Strait relations. The theme of the August 30 protest march was “uphold sovereignty” and “oppose Ma Ying-jeou selling out Taiwan.” Does the DPP really intend to replicate the August 30 protest march? The Ma administration’s cross-Strait and foreign policy may have many blind spots and involve considerable risk. But we hardly need the Democratic Progressive Party to tell us that. Talking heads have already talked our ears off. The DPP probably cannot take to the streets in October with the same slogans they did on August 30. As Tsai Ing-wen said, it must offer new policies. If the march is still aflutter with Taiwan independence flags, if not a single Republic of China flag can be seen, if the banners still read “Eject the Republic of China government in exile!” then what can one say, except “Didn’t we just have a march?”

The new policies Tsai Ing-wen spoke of is the clear need to establish a new thesis regarding national identity. Without such a thesis on national identity, then one has no thesis on cross-Strait relations. The Democratic Progressive Party is critical of the Ma administration’s cross-Strait policy. But if after all is said and done, its alternative is still “Taiwan independence,” then the Democratic Progressive Party must make clear that its cross-strait policy is predicated on the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan and the overthrow of the Republic of China.

Chen Shui-bian seized the initiative, calling for demonstrations in October. Now the DPP is in a dilemma. If it doesn’t hold a protest march, Taiwan independence elements will demand explanations. If it does hold a protest march, it will be the same as bestowing the position of spiritual leader upon Chen Shui-bian. On top of which, Chen Shui-bian is hardly the Democratic Progressive Party’s only problem. Taiwan independence elements have already become an integral part of the DPP’s body politic. They can no longer be simply excised. In May Tsai Ing-wen defeated Taiwan independence elder Koo Kuan-min in her bid for the party chairmanship. Yet the very first Green Camp demonstration, the August 30 protest march, was led by none other than Koo Kuan-min and other Taiwan independence advocates. The Democratic Progressive Party’s ecological makeup has already been clearly revealed. If the Democratic Progressive Party cannot free itself from Taiwan independence bondage, how can it possibly offer any new policy prescriptions?

Tsai Ing-wen has reiterated that “the Democratic Progressive Party must be a responsible opposition party.” Translation: “The DPP should assume the role of a loyal Republic of China opposition party.” If the Democratic Progressive Party’s thesis on national identity is still its “Nation of Taiwan” or “Republic of Taiwan,” how can the Democratic Progressive Party get a majority of the public to accept its cross-Strait thesis?

Chen Yunlin is coming to Taiwan. The DPP is planning a large scale protest march. What is the theme of this protest march to be? That cross-Strait exchanges must be conducted with caution? That Ma Ying-jeou is “leaning towards China and selling out Taiwan?” That the DPP is serving notice on Chen Yunlin that Taiwan is about to declare Independence? That the DPP intends to “eject the Republic of China government-in-exile from Taiwan?” As Tsai Ing-wen said, before taking to the streets one must first make clear what one is protesting, then put forth one’s own proposals.

Otherwise, what can one say in response to the announcement of another march in September, except, “Didn’t we just have a march?”

民進黨應回歸中華民國在野黨的立場
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.27

九月二十八日是民進黨二十二周年黨慶。在未來幾天之內，民進黨必須決定，要不要因海協會長陳雲林來訪舉行大遊行。

蔡英文主席的立場尚不明朗。她說，在上街遊行之前，第一階段應作好論述，第二階段是提出在野黨政策，最後才是街頭運動。也就是說，要先弄清為何遊行，才能談要不要遊行。

民 進黨失去政權而成為反對黨以後，馬政府「提供」的題材很多，但民進黨雖努力表現，卻力戰無功，並未獲得主流社會的積極回響。國人質疑國民黨，但仍不信任民 進黨。這段期間的民進黨，猶如滾籠裡的松鼠，動作很大，卻只是原地打轉；主要的問題正是出在如蔡英文所說，民進黨自己尚未建立新論述，而國人亦看不到民進 黨的新論述。

現在的民進黨，質詢時火力熾烈，但這在二十年前國人已經司空見慣；現在的民進黨，極力護衛「台灣主權」，其實國人幾十年來也 已聽得耳朵長繭；現在的民進黨，仍有發動八三○大遊行的實力，但二十年來民進黨的壯盛遊行場面又豈是罕見？這些政治動作，皆如滾籠松鼠，究竟對民進黨自己 有什麼新意義？對整個台灣又有什麼新啟示？難怪蔡英文日前訪美歸來，被問及十月是否遊行，她反問：「遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？」

陳雲林來 訪，遊行的主題自然是兩岸關係。八三○的遊行主題是「顧主權」及「反對馬英九傾中賣台」，難道十月的遊行還要複製一次？馬政府的兩岸及外交政策或許有許多 盲點與風險，這些其實皆不必民進黨來說，輿論的批評已是盈目貫耳。民進黨恐怕不能在十月再舉著八三○同樣的標語再掃街一趟，而應如蔡英文所說，提出論述與 拿出政策；倘若遊行隊伍仍是台獨旌旗招展，不見一面國旗，標語大字寫著「中華民國流亡政權滾出去」，那麼，遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？

蔡英文所說的「提出論述」，就是必須建立明確的「國家論述」；無國家論述，即無兩岸論述。倘若民進黨今日批評馬政府的兩岸政策，其最後的對策仍然是「台獨建國」；則民進黨即必須先說清楚，它的兩岸政策，是建立在台獨建國與推翻中華民國的前提之下。

陳 水扁先聲奪人，號召十月遊行，使民進黨進退失據。不舉行，不能給獨派交代；舉行，又等於讓陳水扁坐上精神領袖的地位。何況，民進黨的問題絕不在陳水扁一 人，而是體內有一個血肉相連已經無法切割的所謂「獨派」；五月蔡英文打敗獨派辜寬敏贏得黨主席選舉，但至八三○首場綠營大遊行卻是由辜寬敏等獨派主導，已 將民進黨的生態顯露無遺。民進黨若不能擺脫獨派的挾持，豈能奢論什麼「新論述」？

蔡英文不斷重複一句話：「民進黨要做一個負責任的在野黨。」其實，這句話應當落實為：「民進黨應回歸為中華民國的在野黨。」倘若民進黨的「國家論述」仍然是「台灣國」，則民進黨如何讓多數國人接納其「兩岸論述」？

陳雲林來訪，民進黨籌劃大遊行。這是主張兩岸交流必須慎重的大遊行？或這是抗議馬英九「傾中賣台」的大遊行？這是向陳雲林宣示「台獨建國」的大遊行？或這是叫中華民國流亡政府滾出去的大遊行？正如蔡英文所說，在走上街頭之前，難道不應提出論述、拿出政策？

否則，遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？

The Democratic Progressive Party Should Assume the Role of a Loyal Republic of China Opposition Party

The Democratic Progressive Party Should Assume the Role of a Loyal Republic of China Opposition Party
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 27, 2008

September 28 is the 22nd anniversary of the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party. Over the next few days, the Democratic Progressive Party must decide whether to hold a demonstration march over ARATS President Wang Chen Yunlin’s visit to Taiwan.

Chairman Tsai Ing-wen’s position remains unclear. She said that before taking to the streets, the DPP must first make clear what it is protesting. It must then put forth its own opposition party policy proposals. Only then should it take to the streets. In other words, it must first understand why it is protesting before it decides whether it ought to be protesting.

The Democratic Progressive Party has lost power and become the opposition party. The Ma administration has unintentionally provided the DPP with a wide range of issues to complain about. But the Democratic Progressive Party’s efforts have been for naught. It has not received a positive response from the general public. People have their doubts about the KMT. But it does not follow that they trust the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party has been like a squirrel on a treadmill. Lots of energy expended, but no forward movement. Tsai Ing-wen put her finger on the main problem. The Democratic Progressive Party has yet to formulate a new political vision. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has been unable to offer the public a new political vision.

When the Democratic Progressive Party challenges the ruling KMT, it emerges with both guns blazing. But over the past 20 years, the shock has worn off. The Democratic Progressive Party trumpets its defense of “Taiwan’s sovereignty.” But over the past 20 years, the public has developed cobwebs in its ears. The Democratic Progressive Party still has enough strength to organize something like the August 30 protest march. But after 20 years the Democratic Progressive Party’s large scale demonstrations no longer thrill. Such political moves are akin to a squirrel on a treadmill. They no longer have any meaning for the DPP. They no longer have anything to teach Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen just returned from her visit to the United States. When asked if the DPP would hold a demonstration march in October, she replied “March? Didn’t we just have a march?”

Given Chen Yunlin’s visit, the theme of the DPP’s protest march would of course be cross-Strait relations. The theme of the August 30 protest march was “uphold sovereignty” and “oppose Ma Ying-jeou selling out Taiwan.” Does the DPP really intend to replicate the August 30 protest march? The Ma administration’s cross-Strait and foreign policy may have many blind spots and involve considerable risk. But we hardly need the Democratic Progressive Party to tell us that. Talking heads have already talked our ears off. The DPP probably cannot take to the streets in October with the same slogans they did on August 30. As Tsai Ing-wen said, it must offer new policies. If the march is still aflutter with Taiwan independence flags, if not a single Republic of China flag can be seen, if the banners still read “Eject the Republic of China government in exile!” then what can one say, except “Didn’t we just have a march?”

The new policies Tsai Ing-wen spoke of is the clear need to establish a new thesis regarding national identity. Without such a thesis on national identity, then one has no thesis on cross-Strait relations. The Democratic Progressive Party is critical of the Ma administration’s cross-Strait policy. But if after all is said and done, its alternative is still “Taiwan independence,” then the Democratic Progressive Party must make clear that its cross-strait policy is predicated on the founding of an independent Nation of Taiwan and the overthrow of the Republic of China.

Chen Shui-bian seized the initiative, calling for demonstrations in October. Now the DPP is in a dilemma. If it doesn’t hold a protest march, Taiwan independence elements will demand explanations. If it does hold a protest march, it will be the same as bestowing the position of spiritual leader upon Chen Shui-bian. On top of which, Chen Shui-bian is hardly the Democratic Progressive Party’s only problem. Taiwan independence elements have already become an integral part of the DPP’s body politic. They can no longer be simply excised. In May Tsai Ing-wen defeated Taiwan independence elder Koo Kuan-min in her bid for the party chairmanship. Yet the very first Green Camp demonstration, the August 30 protest march, was led by none other than Koo Kuan-min and other Taiwan independence advocates. The Democratic Progressive Party’s ecological makeup has already been clearly revealed. If the Democratic Progressive Party cannot free itself from Taiwan independence bondage, how can it possibly offer any new policy prescriptions?

Tsai Ing-wen has reiterated that “the Democratic Progressive Party must be a responsible opposition party.” Translation: “The DPP should assume the role of a loyal Republic of China opposition party.” If the Democratic Progressive Party’s thesis on national identity is still its “Nation of Taiwan” or “Republic of Taiwan,” how can the Democratic Progressive Party get a majority of the public to accept its cross-Strait thesis?

Chen Yunlin is coming to Taiwan. The DPP is planning a large scale protest march. What is the theme of this protest march to be? That cross-Strait exchanges must be conducted with caution? That Ma Ying-jeou is “leaning towards China and selling out Taiwan?” That the DPP is serving notice on Chen Yunlin that Taiwan is about to declare Independence? That the DPP intends to “eject the Republic of China government-in-exile from Taiwan?” As Tsai Ing-wen said, before taking to the streets one must first make clear what one is protesting, then put forth one’s own proposals.

Otherwise, what can one say in response to the announcement of another march in September, except, “Didn’t we just have a march?”

民進黨應回歸中華民國在野黨的立場
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.27

九月二十八日是民進黨二十二周年黨慶。在未來幾天之內，民進黨必須決定，要不要因海協會長陳雲林來訪舉行大遊行。

蔡英文主席的立場尚不明朗。她說，在上街遊行之前，第一階段應作好論述，第二階段是提出在野黨政策，最後才是街頭運動。也就是說，要先弄清為何遊行，才能談要不要遊行。

民 進黨失去政權而成為反對黨以後，馬政府「提供」的題材很多，但民進黨雖努力表現，卻力戰無功，並未獲得主流社會的積極回響。國人質疑國民黨，但仍不信任民 進黨。這段期間的民進黨，猶如滾籠裡的松鼠，動作很大，卻只是原地打轉；主要的問題正是出在如蔡英文所說，民進黨自己尚未建立新論述，而國人亦看不到民進 黨的新論述。

現在的民進黨，質詢時火力熾烈，但這在二十年前國人已經司空見慣；現在的民進黨，極力護衛「台灣主權」，其實國人幾十年來也 已聽得耳朵長繭；現在的民進黨，仍有發動八三○大遊行的實力，但二十年來民進黨的壯盛遊行場面又豈是罕見？這些政治動作，皆如滾籠松鼠，究竟對民進黨自己 有什麼新意義？對整個台灣又有什麼新啟示？難怪蔡英文日前訪美歸來，被問及十月是否遊行，她反問：「遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？」

陳雲林來 訪，遊行的主題自然是兩岸關係。八三○的遊行主題是「顧主權」及「反對馬英九傾中賣台」，難道十月的遊行還要複製一次？馬政府的兩岸及外交政策或許有許多 盲點與風險，這些其實皆不必民進黨來說，輿論的批評已是盈目貫耳。民進黨恐怕不能在十月再舉著八三○同樣的標語再掃街一趟，而應如蔡英文所說，提出論述與 拿出政策；倘若遊行隊伍仍是台獨旌旗招展，不見一面國旗，標語大字寫著「中華民國流亡政權滾出去」，那麼，遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？

蔡英文所說的「提出論述」，就是必須建立明確的「國家論述」；無國家論述，即無兩岸論述。倘若民進黨今日批評馬政府的兩岸政策，其最後的對策仍然是「台獨建國」；則民進黨即必須先說清楚，它的兩岸政策，是建立在台獨建國與推翻中華民國的前提之下。

陳 水扁先聲奪人，號召十月遊行，使民進黨進退失據。不舉行，不能給獨派交代；舉行，又等於讓陳水扁坐上精神領袖的地位。何況，民進黨的問題絕不在陳水扁一 人，而是體內有一個血肉相連已經無法切割的所謂「獨派」；五月蔡英文打敗獨派辜寬敏贏得黨主席選舉，但至八三○首場綠營大遊行卻是由辜寬敏等獨派主導，已 將民進黨的生態顯露無遺。民進黨若不能擺脫獨派的挾持，豈能奢論什麼「新論述」？

蔡英文不斷重複一句話：「民進黨要做一個負責任的在野黨。」其實，這句話應當落實為：「民進黨應回歸為中華民國的在野黨。」倘若民進黨的「國家論述」仍然是「台灣國」，則民進黨如何讓多數國人接納其「兩岸論述」？

陳雲林來訪，民進黨籌劃大遊行。這是主張兩岸交流必須慎重的大遊行？或這是抗議馬英九「傾中賣台」的大遊行？這是向陳雲林宣示「台獨建國」的大遊行？或這是叫中華民國流亡政府滾出去的大遊行？正如蔡英文所說，在走上街頭之前，難道不應提出論述、拿出政策？

否則，遊行，不是剛遊行過嗎？

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 26, 2008

The Liu cabinet has been in office for over four months. As a result of the tainted milk incident, Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu has been forced to resign. He has become the first political appointee in the Ma/Liu administration to fall. Lin Fang-Yu is well respected in the medical community. But he should not stay on, and need not stay on. Lin Fang-yu is a man of virtue. But in troubled times, merely being a man of virtue is not enough. One must also be a man of ability. Lin Fang-Yu is a symbol of the beleaguered Liu cabinet. Merely being a man of virtue has already cost one ministry official his job. If Premier Liu Chao-hsuan cannot learn the necesssary lessons from his four months in office, then no one, no matter how powerful or wise, will be able to deal with the problems the administration faces.

The Liu cabinet asked a veteran minister to hold down the fort. He probably did not expect so many problems. The problems were so numerous, even an old hand couldn’t cope. He forgot that since the change in ruling parties eight years ago, time is running short. The situation has changed drastically, and includes both external and internal factors. The public may make allowance for external factors. Examples of external factors include the financial turmoil caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and restructuring. Internal factors are not so easily forgiven. Examples of internal factors include hurricane and disaster relief and even something as basic as food quality management. These are problems that government agencies must be concerned about regardless of which party is in power.

Typhoon Kalmaegi inundated the entire island. Water Resources Agency Chief Chen Shen-hsien was blasted. He’s lucky. He kept his job. Typhoon Sinlaku followed, and once again Taiwan was stricken. Bridges and roads collapsed. Secretary General Chen Chin-yuan of the Bureau of Highways was not as lucky. He was sacrificed. Was Chen Chin-yuan treated unfairly? Most unfair was the lack of a unified mechanism ever since the Lee Teng-hui regime eliminated the Taiwan Provincial Government. Agencies at the upper, middle and lower levels of government lacked a coherent structure. One section might be properly administered. But anything could go wrong with some other section. But nothing could be done about it. The Bureau of Highways was in charge. He had to solve the problem even though he couldn’t solve the problem. When he couldn’t solve the problem, he should have begged other agencies for assistance. But Chen Chin-yuan remained silent. He watched idly as President Ma and Premier Liu surveyed the disaster and faced angry disaster victims. Chen Chin-yuan said nothing. He has been blasted mercilessly, but has refused to budge. Is he implying the president should resign in his place?

Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu was working at the National Taiwan University Hospital when Premier Liu recruited him Minister of Health. He is a professional and a man of character. But Lin Fang-yu lacks finesse. He chooses his words poorly. He is modest and self-effacing. He lacked any forceful and coordinated response to the tainted milk crisis. The Department of Health is in charge of food quality management. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Bureau of Standards is in charge of food inspection. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Mainland Affairs Council are both in charge of food ingredients imported from Mainland China. What is there left for the Department of Health to do? Alas, the Minister of Health stands on the front line in the battle to protect peoples’ lives and well-being. He must say what others fear to say. He must be the voice of the people. Lin Fang-yu’s lack of finesse caused the tainted milk incident to get out of control. Lin Fang-yu had no choice but to resign.

The Republic of China is a civilized nation. What constitutes a civilized nation? A civilized nation is one in which people’s lives and property are sacrosanct. The ROC’s food sanitation management does not rank among the world’s highest. But at least a certain level of business ethics prevails. No business would dare to allow tainted products to reach the market. For example when the tainted milk incident erupted, the King Car Group immediately sent samples to laboratories for testing, on the company’s own initiative. As soon as the company became aware of a problem, it ordered a complete recall. When even businesses feel obligated to take such steps, where are the authorities? Government inspections are inadequate. The public has been forced to “Do It Yourself.” Most outrageous of all, a product that failed the test could pass 24 hours later.

A major food quality management incident such as this should have forced government agencies to conduct comprehensive tests. Before they conduct any such tests, they must formulate a consistent set of safety standards. On the very first day, the government had a “zero tolerance” policy for melamine. The standard was so strict no industry passed. No one dared protest. All they could do was meekly remove their products from the shelves. What was the justification for such draconian standards? Why, because human lives were at stake. Who knew that 24 hours later, the standards would be relaxed. Products taken off the shelves the day before could be put back on the shelves the day after. Industries that had already apologized could hardly demand compensation from the government. A complete about face in only 24-hours. Government officials think only of the test data. They don’t seem to appreciate that these dry numbers impact industry revenue, and even more importantly, consumer confidence.

When the Liu cabinet took office, it was touted as the “PhD cabinet.” That was not necessarily a compliment. PhDs are often oblivious to the hardships suffered by ordinary folk. A group of academics toil away in the laboratories, accumulating quantitative knowledge. But their cold statistics cannot represent the value of even the humblest of human lives. Premier Liu was afraid to drink a cup of powdered milk prepared by an opposition legislator. When he did that, he had already alienated himself from the people. He did not seem to realize that the cup of milk he was afraid to drink was something people drink every morning of their lives. Four hours later, a committee within the Executive Yuan relaxed the test standards. Will this new standard put people at ease? We doubt it. As long as Premier Liu and other government officials are afraid to drink the same milk that the public drinks every day, whom among us can say “I trust the government?”

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.09.26
再學不到教訓，神仙也救不成了！
中時社論

劉內閣上台四個月多，為了毒奶粉事件，衛生署長林芳郁書面請辭，成為馬劉政府第一位陣亡的政務官。林芳郁在醫界夙有名望，但是，不該留也不必留；林芳郁當 然是好人，但，亂世為官，只有一個「好」字還不夠，他還得有「能」。林芳郁只是目前危機重重的劉內閣一個縮影，行政院長劉兆玄若不能從四個月消耗一個部會 首長的經驗中習取教訓，坦白講，武功再高的聰明人，都擋不住政府必須面對與處理那些千頭萬緒的問題。

劉內閣請出老將壓陣，他大概沒想到怎麼可能有這麼多事，是經驗老到的部會首長無法處置的。他忘了，政黨輪替八年來，時間不可謂短，現實的變化不可謂不大， 這裡頭有外部因素，有內部因素，外部因素民眾勉強可諒解，諸如次貸、二房、雷曼兄弟宣告破產重整引發的各種金融風暴效應；內部因素很難理解，諸如風災與救 災，乃至最基本的食品管理，照正常都是不論政黨輪替與否，政府部門都應該關切的。

卡玫基颱風讓各地淹大水，水利署長陳伸賢被盯得滿頭包，他運氣好，被保住了；辛樂克颱風再來，還是全台災情，橋也斷了、路也塌了，公路總局長陳晉源沒陳伸 賢的命，被犧牲掉了，陳晉源被冤枉了嗎？真冤枉，因為政府事權自廢省以來從未統一，上、中、下游治理主管機關不一，治好了一段，隨便那一段沒治好，都可能 出事，但是，沒辦法，既為公路「總局」，不總其成也得總其成，至少他無法總其成時，得哀哀求告，要求其他單位配合或協助，陳晉源大氣沒吭一句，遑論他還讓 勘災總司令馬英九總統與劉揆，到了地方面對父老鄉親的責難，一句話都不知如何講起，挨罵到翻天，他不走人，難不成讓總統走人嗎？

林芳郁是劉揆從台大醫院請出馬的署長，專業、人品毫無問題，最大的問題是，林芳郁是個老實人，他不善言詞，為人謙沖，碰到中國毒奶粉這麼大的危機，無法強 勢統合。食品管理在衛生署、食品檢驗在經濟部標檢局，大陸食品原料進口在經濟部與陸委會，衛生署能說什麼？很抱歉，做為為人民生命健康把關的第一線部會首 長，不能說的話，他得在第一線為人民發聲，他的老實讓毒奶粉事件擴大蔓延到不可收拾，林芳郁也沒有第二條路走。

台灣，已經是個文明國家，什麼叫文明國家？人民的生命財產是最重要的事！台灣的食品衛生管理，不敢說是居先進國家之冠，至少基本的企業道德已經建立，沒有 那一個企業集團敢在讓人民入口下肚的產品中亂搞，最簡單的例子，金車食品在毒奶粉事件發生後，以最快時間主動送驗，發覺有問題即刻主動宣布全面下架，企業 主都有良心做這個事，請問主管機關何在？政府單位檢驗不及，要民眾ＤＩＹ，更離譜的是，檢驗標準可以廿四小時來個天翻地覆的大變化，從不合格轉為合格。

發生這麼大的食品管理事件，政府機關本來就應該全面檢驗，全面檢驗前就應該有一個一致、公平、且安全的標準，第一天政府對奶製品三聚氰胺的檢驗標準必須是 「零」，嚴格到幾乎業者逃無可逃，沒人吭氣只能配合全面下架，為什麼？因為事關人命！沒想到廿四小時之後，檢驗標準竟然放寬了，影響所及，前一天已經下架 的產品可以重新上架，已經道歉的業者甚至不敢問，「能不能向政府求償」。廿四小時的變化，政府官員想到的只是檢驗標準的數據，但是，這麼簡單的一個數據影 響的是業者的收益，更嚴重的是消費者的信心。

劉內閣上台時，被捧為「博士內閣」，這四個字褒中帶貶，「博士」者實則不知民間疾苦，在研究室裡的學者群，以數據累積學問，但是，人生、生命、乃至最簡單 的生活，都不是這些冷冰冰的數據可反映的。當劉揆在立法院備詢不敢一口飲盡反對黨立委沖泡的奶粉時，他已經和民眾遠了一步，他不知道，這一杯他不敢喝下肚 的飲品，就是民眾每天晨起的生活！就在劉揆畫下一條線和民眾區隔的四小時後，行政院跨部會會議就把檢驗放寬了，這個標準能不能讓民眾安心？坦白講，我們是 存疑的，但是，只要劉揆或任何政府官員不敢公開喝一杯民眾每天都喝的奶製品，沒有任何人敢說：我對這個政府放心！

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 26, 2008

The Liu cabinet has been in office for over four months. As a result of the tainted milk incident, Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu has been forced to resign. He has become the first political appointee in the Ma/Liu administration to fall. Lin Fang-Yu is well respected in the medical community. But he should not stay on, and need not stay on. Lin Fang-yu is a man of virtue. But in troubled times, merely being a man of virtue is not enough. One must also be a man of ability. Lin Fang-Yu is a symbol of the beleaguered Liu cabinet. Merely being a man of virtue has already cost one ministry official his job. If Premier Liu Chao-hsuan cannot learn the necesssary lessons from his four months in office, then no one, no matter how powerful or wise, will be able to deal with the problems the administration faces.

The Liu cabinet asked a veteran minister to hold down the fort. He probably did not expect so many problems. The problems were so numerous, even an old hand couldn’t cope. He forgot that since the change in ruling parties eight years ago, time is running short. The situation has changed drastically, and includes both external and internal factors. The public may make allowance for external factors. Examples of external factors include the financial turmoil caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and restructuring. Internal factors are not so easily forgiven. Examples of internal factors include hurricane and disaster relief and even something as basic as food quality management. These are problems that government agencies must be concerned about regardless of which party is in power.

Typhoon Kalmaegi inundated the entire island. Water Resources Agency Chief Chen Shen-hsien was blasted. He’s lucky. He kept his job. Typhoon Sinlaku followed, and once again Taiwan was stricken. Bridges and roads collapsed. Secretary General Chen Chin-yuan of the Bureau of Highways was not as lucky. He was sacrificed. Was Chen Chin-yuan treated unfairly? Most unfair was the lack of a unified mechanism ever since the Lee Teng-hui regime eliminated the Taiwan Provincial Government. Agencies at the upper, middle and lower levels of government lacked a coherent structure. One section might be properly administered. But anything could go wrong with some other section. But nothing could be done about it. The Bureau of Highways was in charge. He had to solve the problem even though he couldn’t solve the problem. When he couldn’t solve the problem, he should have begged other agencies for assistance. But Chen Chin-yuan remained silent. He watched idly as President Ma and Premier Liu surveyed the disaster and faced angry disaster victims. Chen Chin-yuan said nothing. He has been blasted mercilessly, but has refused to budge. Is he implying the president should resign in his place?

Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu was working at the National Taiwan University Hospital when Premier Liu recruited him Minister of Health. He is a professional and a man of character. But Lin Fang-yu lacks finesse. He chooses his words poorly. He is modest and self-effacing. He lacked any forceful and coordinated response to the tainted milk crisis. The Department of Health is in charge of food quality management. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Bureau of Standards is in charge of food inspection. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Mainland Affairs Council are both in charge of food ingredients imported from Mainland China. What is there left for the Department of Health to do? Alas, the Minister of Health stands on the front line in the battle to protect peoples’ lives and well-being. He must say what others fear to say. He must be the voice of the people. Lin Fang-yu’s lack of finesse caused the tainted milk incident to get out of control. Lin Fang-yu had no choice but to resign.

The Republic of China is a civilized nation. What constitutes a civilized nation? A civilized nation is one in which people’s lives and property are sacrosanct. The ROC’s food sanitation management does not rank among the world’s highest. But at least a certain level of business ethics prevails. No business would dare to allow tainted products to reach the market. For example when the tainted milk incident erupted, the King Car Group immediately sent samples to laboratories for testing, on the company’s own initiative. As soon as the company became aware of a problem, it ordered a complete recall. When even businesses feel obligated to take such steps, where are the authorities? Government inspections are inadequate. The public has been forced to “Do It Yourself.” Most outrageous of all, a product that failed the test could pass 24 hours later.

A major food quality management incident such as this should have forced government agencies to conduct comprehensive tests. Before they conduct any such tests, they must formulate a consistent set of safety standards. On the very first day, the government had a “zero tolerance” policy for melamine. The standard was so strict no industry passed. No one dared protest. All they could do was meekly remove their products from the shelves. What was the justification for such draconian standards? Why, because human lives were at stake. Who knew that 24 hours later, the standards would be relaxed. Products taken off the shelves the day before could be put back on the shelves the day after. Industries that had already apologized could hardly demand compensation from the government. A complete about face in only 24-hours. Government officials think only of the test data. They don’t seem to appreciate that these dry numbers impact industry revenue, and even more importantly, consumer confidence.

When the Liu cabinet took office, it was touted as the “PhD cabinet.” That was not necessarily a compliment. PhDs are often oblivious to the hardships suffered by ordinary folk. A group of academics toil away in the laboratories, accumulating quantitative knowledge. But their cold statistics cannot represent the value of even the humblest of human lives. Premier Liu was afraid to drink a cup of powdered milk prepared by an opposition legislator. When he did that, he had already alienated himself from the people. He did not seem to realize that the cup of milk he was afraid to drink was something people drink every morning of their lives. Four hours later, a committee within the Executive Yuan relaxed the test standards. Will this new standard put people at ease? We doubt it. As long as Premier Liu and other government officials are afraid to drink the same milk that the public drinks every day, whom among us can say “I trust the government?”

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.09.26
再學不到教訓，神仙也救不成了！
中時社論

劉內閣上台四個月多，為了毒奶粉事件，衛生署長林芳郁書面請辭，成為馬劉政府第一位陣亡的政務官。林芳郁在醫界夙有名望，但是，不該留也不必留；林芳郁當 然是好人，但，亂世為官，只有一個「好」字還不夠，他還得有「能」。林芳郁只是目前危機重重的劉內閣一個縮影，行政院長劉兆玄若不能從四個月消耗一個部會 首長的經驗中習取教訓，坦白講，武功再高的聰明人，都擋不住政府必須面對與處理那些千頭萬緒的問題。

劉內閣請出老將壓陣，他大概沒想到怎麼可能有這麼多事，是經驗老到的部會首長無法處置的。他忘了，政黨輪替八年來，時間不可謂短，現實的變化不可謂不大， 這裡頭有外部因素，有內部因素，外部因素民眾勉強可諒解，諸如次貸、二房、雷曼兄弟宣告破產重整引發的各種金融風暴效應；內部因素很難理解，諸如風災與救 災，乃至最基本的食品管理，照正常都是不論政黨輪替與否，政府部門都應該關切的。

卡玫基颱風讓各地淹大水，水利署長陳伸賢被盯得滿頭包，他運氣好，被保住了；辛樂克颱風再來，還是全台災情，橋也斷了、路也塌了，公路總局長陳晉源沒陳伸 賢的命，被犧牲掉了，陳晉源被冤枉了嗎？真冤枉，因為政府事權自廢省以來從未統一，上、中、下游治理主管機關不一，治好了一段，隨便那一段沒治好，都可能 出事，但是，沒辦法，既為公路「總局」，不總其成也得總其成，至少他無法總其成時，得哀哀求告，要求其他單位配合或協助，陳晉源大氣沒吭一句，遑論他還讓 勘災總司令馬英九總統與劉揆，到了地方面對父老鄉親的責難，一句話都不知如何講起，挨罵到翻天，他不走人，難不成讓總統走人嗎？

林芳郁是劉揆從台大醫院請出馬的署長，專業、人品毫無問題，最大的問題是，林芳郁是個老實人，他不善言詞，為人謙沖，碰到中國毒奶粉這麼大的危機，無法強 勢統合。食品管理在衛生署、食品檢驗在經濟部標檢局，大陸食品原料進口在經濟部與陸委會，衛生署能說什麼？很抱歉，做為為人民生命健康把關的第一線部會首 長，不能說的話，他得在第一線為人民發聲，他的老實讓毒奶粉事件擴大蔓延到不可收拾，林芳郁也沒有第二條路走。

台灣，已經是個文明國家，什麼叫文明國家？人民的生命財產是最重要的事！台灣的食品衛生管理，不敢說是居先進國家之冠，至少基本的企業道德已經建立，沒有 那一個企業集團敢在讓人民入口下肚的產品中亂搞，最簡單的例子，金車食品在毒奶粉事件發生後，以最快時間主動送驗，發覺有問題即刻主動宣布全面下架，企業 主都有良心做這個事，請問主管機關何在？政府單位檢驗不及，要民眾ＤＩＹ，更離譜的是，檢驗標準可以廿四小時來個天翻地覆的大變化，從不合格轉為合格。

發生這麼大的食品管理事件，政府機關本來就應該全面檢驗，全面檢驗前就應該有一個一致、公平、且安全的標準，第一天政府對奶製品三聚氰胺的檢驗標準必須是 「零」，嚴格到幾乎業者逃無可逃，沒人吭氣只能配合全面下架，為什麼？因為事關人命！沒想到廿四小時之後，檢驗標準竟然放寬了，影響所及，前一天已經下架 的產品可以重新上架，已經道歉的業者甚至不敢問，「能不能向政府求償」。廿四小時的變化，政府官員想到的只是檢驗標準的數據，但是，這麼簡單的一個數據影 響的是業者的收益，更嚴重的是消費者的信心。

劉內閣上台時，被捧為「博士內閣」，這四個字褒中帶貶，「博士」者實則不知民間疾苦，在研究室裡的學者群，以數據累積學問，但是，人生、生命、乃至最簡單 的生活，都不是這些冷冰冰的數據可反映的。當劉揆在立法院備詢不敢一口飲盡反對黨立委沖泡的奶粉時，他已經和民眾遠了一步，他不知道，這一杯他不敢喝下肚 的飲品，就是民眾每天晨起的生活！就在劉揆畫下一條線和民眾區隔的四小時後，行政院跨部會會議就把檢驗放寬了，這個標準能不能讓民眾安心？坦白講，我們是 存疑的，但是，只要劉揆或任何政府官員不敢公開喝一杯民眾每天都喝的奶製品，沒有任何人敢說：我對這個政府放心！

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You

Learn Your Lessons, or Even the Angels Can’t Help You
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 26, 2008

Summary: The Liu cabinet has been in office for over four months. As a result of the tainted milk incident, Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu has been forced to resign. He has become the first political appointee in the Ma/Liu administration to fall. Lin Fang-Yu is well respected in the medical community. But he should not stay on, and need not stay on. Lin Fang-yu is a man of virtue. But in troubled times, merely being a man of virtue is not enough. One must also be a man of ability. Lin Fang-Yu is a symbol of the beleaguered Liu cabinet. Merely being a man of virtue has already cost one ministry official his job. If Premier Liu Chao-hsuan cannot learn the necesssary lessons from his four months in office, then no one, no matter how powerful or wise, will be able to deal with the problems the administration faces.

Full Text below:

The Liu cabinet has been in office for over four months. As a result of the tainted milk incident, Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu has been forced to resign. He has become the first political appointee in the Ma/Liu administration to fall. Lin Fang-Yu is well respected in the medical community. But he should not stay on, and need not stay on. Lin Fang-yu is a man of virtue. But in troubled times, merely being a man of virtue is not enough. One must also be a man of ability. Lin Fang-Yu is a symbol of the beleaguered Liu cabinet. Merely being a man of virtue has already cost one ministry official his job. If Premier Liu Chao-hsuan cannot learn the necesssary lessons from his four months in office, then no one, no matter how powerful or wise, will be able to deal with the problems the administration faces.

The Liu cabinet asked a veteran minister to hold down the fort. He probably did not expect so many problems. The problems were so numerous, even an old hand couldn’t cope. He forgot that since the change in ruling parties eight years ago, time is running short. The situation has changed drastically, and includes both external and internal factors. The public may make allowance for external factors. Examples of external factors include the financial turmoil caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and restructuring. Internal factors are not so easily forgiven. Examples of internal factors include hurricane and disaster relief and even something as basic as food quality management. These are problems that government agencies must be concerned about regardless of which party is in power.

Typhoon Kalmaegi inundated the entire island. Water Resources Agency Chief Chen Shen-hsien was blasted. He’s lucky. He kept his job. Typhoon Sinlaku followed, and once again Taiwan was stricken. Bridges and roads collapsed. Secretary General Chen Chin-yuan of the Bureau of Highways was not as lucky. He was sacrificed. Was Chen Chin-yuan treated unfairly? Most unfair was the lack of a unified mechanism ever since the Lee Teng-hui regime eliminated the Taiwan Provincial Government. Agencies at the upper, middle and lower levels of government lacked a coherent structure. One section might be properly administered. But anything could go wrong with some other section. But nothing could be done about it. The Bureau of Highways was in charge. He had to solve the problem even though he couldn’t solve the problem. When he couldn’t solve the problem, he should have begged other agencies for assistance. But Chen Chin-yuan remained silent. He watched idly as President Ma and Premier Liu surveyed the disaster and faced angry disaster victims. Chen Chin-yuan said nothing. He has been blasted mercilessly, but has refused to budge. Is he implying the president should resign in his place?

Minister of Health Lin Fang-yu was working at the National Taiwan University Hospital when Premier Liu recruited him Minister of Health. He is a professional and a man of character. But Lin Fang-yu lacks finesse. He chooses his words poorly. He is modest and self-effacing. He lacked any forceful and coordinated response to the tainted milk crisis. The Department of Health is in charge of food quality management. The Ministry of Economic Affairs Bureau of Standards is in charge of food inspection. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Mainland Affairs Council are both in charge of food ingredients imported from Mainland China. What is there left for the Department of Health to do? Alas, the Minister of Health stands on the front line in the battle to protect peoples’ lives and well-being. He must say what others fear to say. He must be the voice of the people. Lin Fang-yu’s lack of finesse caused the tainted milk incident to get out of control. Lin Fang-yu had no choice but to resign.

The Republic of China is a civilized nation. What constitutes a civilized nation? A civilized nation is one in which people’s lives and property are sacrosanct. The ROC’s food sanitation management does not rank among the world’s highest. But at least a certain level of business ethics prevails. No business would dare to allow tainted products to reach the market. For example when the tainted milk incident erupted, the King Car Group immediately sent samples to laboratories for testing, on the company’s own initiative. As soon as the company became aware of a problem, it ordered a complete recall. When even businesses feel obligated to take such steps, where are the authorities? Government inspections are inadequate. The public has been forced to “Do It Yourself.” Most outrageous of all, a product that failed the test could pass 24 hours later.

A major food quality management incident such as this should have forced government agencies to conduct comprehensive tests. Before they conduct any such tests, they must formulate a consistent set of safety standards. On the very first day, the government had a “zero tolerance” policy for melamine. The standard was so strict no industry passed. No one dared protest. All they could do was meekly remove their products from the shelves. What was the justification for such draconian standards? Why, because human lives were at stake. Who knew that 24 hours later, the standards would be relaxed. Products taken off the shelves the day before could be put back on the shelves the day after. Industries that had already apologized could hardly demand compensation from the government. A complete about face in only 24-hours. Government officials think only of the test data. They don’t seem to appreciate that these dry numbers impact industry revenue, and even more importantly, consumer confidence.

When the Liu cabinet took office, it was touted as the “PhD cabinet.” That was not necessarily a compliment. PhDs are often oblivious to the hardships suffered by ordinary folk. A group of academics toil away in the laboratories, accumulating quantitative knowledge. But their cold statistics cannot represent the value of even the humblest of human lives. Premier Liu was afraid to drink a cup of powdered milk prepared by an opposition legislator. When he did that, he had already alienated himself from the people. He did not seem to realize that the cup of milk he was afraid to drink was something people drink every morning of their lives. Four hours later, a committee within the Executive Yuan relaxed the test standards. Will this new standard put people at ease? We doubt it. As long as Premier Liu and other government officials are afraid to drink the same milk that the public drinks every day, whom among us can say “I trust the government?”

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.09.26
再學不到教訓，神仙也救不成了！
中時社論

劉內閣上台四個月多，為了毒奶粉事件，衛生署長林芳郁書面請辭，成為馬劉政府第一位陣亡的政務官。林芳郁在醫界夙有名望，但是，不該留也不必留；林芳郁當 然是好人，但，亂世為官，只有一個「好」字還不夠，他還得有「能」。林芳郁只是目前危機重重的劉內閣一個縮影，行政院長劉兆玄若不能從四個月消耗一個部會 首長的經驗中習取教訓，坦白講，武功再高的聰明人，都擋不住政府必須面對與處理那些千頭萬緒的問題。

劉內閣請出老將壓陣，他大概沒想到怎麼可能有這麼多事，是經驗老到的部會首長無法處置的。他忘了，政黨輪替八年來，時間不可謂短，現實的變化不可謂不大， 這裡頭有外部因素，有內部因素，外部因素民眾勉強可諒解，諸如次貸、二房、雷曼兄弟宣告破產重整引發的各種金融風暴效應；內部因素很難理解，諸如風災與救 災，乃至最基本的食品管理，照正常都是不論政黨輪替與否，政府部門都應該關切的。

卡玫基颱風讓各地淹大水，水利署長陳伸賢被盯得滿頭包，他運氣好，被保住了；辛樂克颱風再來，還是全台災情，橋也斷了、路也塌了，公路總局長陳晉源沒陳伸 賢的命，被犧牲掉了，陳晉源被冤枉了嗎？真冤枉，因為政府事權自廢省以來從未統一，上、中、下游治理主管機關不一，治好了一段，隨便那一段沒治好，都可能 出事，但是，沒辦法，既為公路「總局」，不總其成也得總其成，至少他無法總其成時，得哀哀求告，要求其他單位配合或協助，陳晉源大氣沒吭一句，遑論他還讓 勘災總司令馬英九總統與劉揆，到了地方面對父老鄉親的責難，一句話都不知如何講起，挨罵到翻天，他不走人，難不成讓總統走人嗎？

林芳郁是劉揆從台大醫院請出馬的署長，專業、人品毫無問題，最大的問題是，林芳郁是個老實人，他不善言詞，為人謙沖，碰到中國毒奶粉這麼大的危機，無法強 勢統合。食品管理在衛生署、食品檢驗在經濟部標檢局，大陸食品原料進口在經濟部與陸委會，衛生署能說什麼？很抱歉，做為為人民生命健康把關的第一線部會首 長，不能說的話，他得在第一線為人民發聲，他的老實讓毒奶粉事件擴大蔓延到不可收拾，林芳郁也沒有第二條路走。

台灣，已經是個文明國家，什麼叫文明國家？人民的生命財產是最重要的事！台灣的食品衛生管理，不敢說是居先進國家之冠，至少基本的企業道德已經建立，沒有 那一個企業集團敢在讓人民入口下肚的產品中亂搞，最簡單的例子，金車食品在毒奶粉事件發生後，以最快時間主動送驗，發覺有問題即刻主動宣布全面下架，企業 主都有良心做這個事，請問主管機關何在？政府單位檢驗不及，要民眾ＤＩＹ，更離譜的是，檢驗標準可以廿四小時來個天翻地覆的大變化，從不合格轉為合格。

發生這麼大的食品管理事件，政府機關本來就應該全面檢驗，全面檢驗前就應該有一個一致、公平、且安全的標準，第一天政府對奶製品三聚氰胺的檢驗標準必須是 「零」，嚴格到幾乎業者逃無可逃，沒人吭氣只能配合全面下架，為什麼？因為事關人命！沒想到廿四小時之後，檢驗標準竟然放寬了，影響所及，前一天已經下架 的產品可以重新上架，已經道歉的業者甚至不敢問，「能不能向政府求償」。廿四小時的變化，政府官員想到的只是檢驗標準的數據，但是，這麼簡單的一個數據影 響的是業者的收益，更嚴重的是消費者的信心。

劉內閣上台時，被捧為「博士內閣」，這四個字褒中帶貶，「博士」者實則不知民間疾苦，在研究室裡的學者群，以數據累積學問，但是，人生、生命、乃至最簡單 的生活，都不是這些冷冰冰的數據可反映的。當劉揆在立法院備詢不敢一口飲盡反對黨立委沖泡的奶粉時，他已經和民眾遠了一步，他不知道，這一杯他不敢喝下肚 的飲品，就是民眾每天晨起的生活！就在劉揆畫下一條線和民眾區隔的四小時後，行政院跨部會會議就把檢驗放寬了，這個標準能不能讓民眾安心？坦白講，我們是 存疑的，但是，只要劉揆或任何政府官員不敢公開喝一杯民眾每天都喝的奶製品，沒有任何人敢說：我對這個政府放心！

Melamine and Cross-Strait Relations

Melamine and Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2008

Summary: The storm over melamine tainted powdered milk rages on. The scandal has cast doubt on the safety of a wide number of food products, and constitutes a major cross-strait incident. The shockwaves are increasingly intense. If the source of the tainted milk had not been Mainland China, had it been an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States for example, the problem  would not have become so politicized. US beef consumption on Taiwan is limited. Therefore the impact is limited; But because the tainted milk originated in Mainland China, the issue was promptly   politicized. Everyone is a consumer of dairy products. Add the threat to children’s health, and we have all the ingredients for  a “Perfect Storm.”

Full Text below:

The storm over melamine tainted powdered milk  rages on. The scandal has cast doubt on the safety of a wide number  of food products, and constitutes a major cross-strait incident. The shockwaves are increasingly intense.

If the source of the tainted milk had not been Mainland China, had it been an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States for example, the problem  would not have become so politicized. US beef consumption on Taiwan is limited. Therefore the impact is limited; But because the tainted milk originated in Mainland China, the issue was promptly  politicized. Everyone is a consumer of dairy products. Add the threat to children’s health, and we have all the ingredients for  a “Perfect Storm.”

We have two ways of examining the issue. One. The government’s food safety crisis management ability. Two. Cross-Strait relations.

In terms of crisis management, the Department of Health initially declared that no powdered milk had been imported to Taiwan. Instead, ARATS, on the other side of the Strait, informed us that powdered milk had been imported, long ago. Clearly, the Department of Health was not on top of matters. Next, the King Car Group voluntarily submitted its products for examination, taking full responsibility for their  safety. Only then did the Department of Health  realize the extent of the problem. In short, ARATS and the King Car Group had a better handle on the situation than the government agency in charge.

Having lost the initiative, the Liu cabinet panicked. Under pressure to prevent public harm and reduce public anxiety, it proposed two extreme measures. One. It announced that everyone was eligible for a free kidney stone checkup. Some in the medical community considered this  “unnecessarily provocative.” Two. It declared that all vegetable protein products, creamers, and dairy products manufactured on the Mainland would be removed from the shelves within 24 hours. The total value these products? Over one billion NT. A major controversy erupted over whether this sort of decision-making achieved  the proper balance between ensuring public safety and reducing public anxiety.

In terms of cross-Strait relations, the incident offers some interesting lessons. From the very beginning the cabinet found itself at a loss for words. By contrast, Hu Jintao blasted mainland bureaucrats as “callous and indifferent, cavalier in their attitude.” Wen Jiabao accused the manufacturers of “lacking  consciences.” By contrast, our cabinet’s remarks were either not enough or too much. At one time only  issues such as Tibet were considered too hot to handle. Who knew tainted milk would one day rival Tibet for political sensitivity?

Premier Liu Chao-hsuan proposed sending a delegation to the mainland to “investigate.” He also mentioned “demands for compensation.” This also touched raw nerves on both sides. Take  so-called “plant inspections.” Without private sector interaction between the import and export industries on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, officials representing the victims would find it hard to put forth even a quasi-official request. The government of the Republic of China cannot arbitrarily demand the right to inspect plants in Vietnam. By the same token, it would be hard to claim a right to inspect plants on Mainland China. Premier Liu’s proposals are predicated upon a  highly unrealistic improvement in cross-Strait relations.

Regarding demands for compensation, Experts wondered who would do the negotiating. MAC and ARATS? How would the  negotiations would be conducted? Would they resemble negotiations over WTO participation? Would they resemble negotiations over the 1992 Consensus? Many problems would arise. When Premier Liu raised the issue of “plant inspections” and “demands for compensation,” he may have pointed the way to long term solutions. But he also highlighted the lack of consensus and the lack of a solid legal foundation for cross-Strait interaction.

The tempest over melamine contaminated products has been a “shock to the system.” It has been a test of the Liu cabinet’s crisis management ability. It has also been a test of its ability to deal with cross-Strait affairs. The two sides are becoming increasingly open to each other. Civil sector frictions will become more common. If in the face of such incidents the government finds itself at a loss for words, if it does not know how to negotiate, if it is unable to weigh the pros and cons, it will be caught on the horns a dilemma.

For the Mainland authorities the melamine contamination scandal is an opportunity to engage in a major reevaluation of its political and economic system. How could such a major scandal be suppressed for over nine months? How could  a company as large as San Lu be so devoid of conscience? How could the media, with the exception of Shanghai’s East China Morning Post, have remained silent? As we engage in painful soul-searching, we realize the scandal has seriously undermined Mainland China’s international image. But it is also an opportunity for the Mainland authorities to reevaluate cross-Strait relations. The melamine contamination scandal occurred on Mainland China. It explains the lack of confidence in the Mainland’s political and economic system. It also explains the persistent mistrust between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

The melamine contamination scandal offers lessons for authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. As cross-Strait exchanges become more frequent, the two sides will need  an equitable and mutually beneficial framework for interaction. The contaminated powdered milk scandal must not be buried beneath a mountain of “sovereignty” issues. After all, such scandals involve the health and welfare of the people. If the two sides remain trapped  in a political quagmire, they  will undermine cross-strait reconciliation.

三聚氰胺與兩岸關係
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.25 02:53 am

三聚氰胺風暴方興未艾。這是一件牽涉廣大的食品安全事件，且這又是一件重大的兩岸事件；相激相盪，愈演愈烈。

倘若此事不是出自中國，比如狂牛病牛肉出在美國，事件的政治因素便較小，且美國牛肉在台灣的消費族群畢竟有限，因此衝擊亦有限；但此次三聚氰胺事件出自中國，政治因素立即升高，且乳製品的消費族群又無所不在，尤其威脅兒童健康，遂演成風暴。

因此，欲觀察或評論此事，可有兩個角度：一、政府對於食品安全風暴的危機處理；二、兩岸關係。

就危機處理言，衛生署一開始竟宣稱毒奶粉未有進口，反而是由對岸海協會告知早有銷台，足見衛生署的掌握有失周密；接著，又因金車公司主動送驗，並明快表示負起社會責任，衛生署始知大勢不妙。也就是說，主管當局對情勢的掌握，非但落後於海協會，亦落後於金車公司。

先 機一失，也就陷於手忙腳亂之局，整個內閣立即須在化解危害與降低社會恐慌之間進行兩難操作，如今則採取了兩個極端的作法：一、全民可免費檢查有否腎結石， 醫界有人認為是「無謂恐慌」；二、所有含大陸製植物性蛋白質、奶精及乳製品成分的產品，一律在二十四小時內下架，總值逾十億元。這類決策是否在化解危害與 降低恐慌之間取得了較佳平衡，已成社會議論的話題。

從兩岸關係的角度來看此事發展，尤可記取教訓。內閣一開始就陷於 言詞拿捏不易的情勢，後來連胡錦濤亦嚴斥中共官僚「麻木不仁、作風漂浮」，溫家寶也指涉案廠商「沒良心」；但我們內閣的發言，卻始終有「輕不得，重不得」 的困境；原來以為，只有西藏之類的政治問題難以表態，今後自當想一想類如毒奶粉事件該當如何措辭。

劉兆玄院長主張派 團赴大陸「調查」，並謂將要「索賠」，這也觸及了兩岸的痛處。所謂「查廠」，除非是雙方進出口業者的民間互動，恐怕很難由受害國的官方及準官方片面提出此 種要求；中華民國政府不可能任意主張赴越南查廠，同樣也很難主張赴中國大陸查廠。劉揆的主張若欲實現，須對兩岸關係充滿想像。

至 於索賠求償，有專家指出，立即會觸及談判平台的問題，無論是用兩會模式談判，或透過ＷＴＯ管道談判，或用「九二共識」模式談判，恐怕均有礙難之處。因此， 劉揆將情勢升高至「查廠／索賠」的高度，一方面也許指出了解決問題的方向，但另一方面其實也揭露了兩岸在面臨此類事件時，並無一套穩定的法理共識與一個有 效的互動平台。

這次三聚氰胺風暴，對劉內閣處理食品安全危機是一震撼教育，對劉內閣處理兩岸事務更是一尖銳的刺激。 畢竟，兩岸愈來愈開放，這類涉及「民生」的糾紛也必愈來愈多；倘若政府在面對此類事件時，不知如何措辭，不知如何交涉，不知如何訂定「得／失」的標準，必 將陷於左支右絀、進退兩難之境地。

對於中共當局而言，這次三聚氰胺事件，亦是對其政經體制上大反省的時機，何以如此 大案竟能至少壓了九個月，何以三鹿如此巨商亦「沒有良心」，又何以除上海東方早報外，新聞界皆遭「封口」，在在皆應痛思猛省；當然，此一事件除了重傷中國 的國際形象，也是中共思考兩岸關係的時機，三聚氰胺這類事件發生於中國，反映了大陸不可信任的政經機制，這也許正是兩岸始終存有隔閡的主要因素。

此一事件，對兩岸當局皆當有所啟示。當兩岸的交流愈來愈頻密，必然需要一套對等互利的法制平台；不能把毒奶粉這類事件的交涉，也壓在「主權定位」的五指山下。畢竟，這類事件牽涉重大的民生關懷，倘若還陷在政治文章的泥淖之中，絕對與兩岸所努力經營的和解氛圍背道而馳。

Melamine and Cross-Strait Relations

Melamine and Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2008

Summary: The storm over melamine tainted powdered milk rages on. The scandal has cast doubt on the safety of a wide number of food products, and constitutes a major cross-strait incident. The shockwaves are increasingly intense. If the source of the tainted milk had not been Mainland China, had it been an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States for example, the problem  would not have become so politicized. US beef consumption on Taiwan is limited. Therefore the impact is limited; But because the tainted milk originated in Mainland China, the issue was promptly   politicized. Everyone is a consumer of dairy products. Add the threat to children’s health, and we have all the ingredients for  a “Perfect Storm.”

Full Text below:

The storm over melamine tainted powdered milk  rages on. The scandal has cast doubt on the safety of a wide number  of food products, and constitutes a major cross-strait incident. The shockwaves are increasingly intense.

If the source of the tainted milk had not been Mainland China, had it been an outbreak of mad cow disease in the United States for example, the problem  would not have become so politicized. US beef consumption on Taiwan is limited. Therefore the impact is limited; But because the tainted milk originated in Mainland China, the issue was promptly  politicized. Everyone is a consumer of dairy products. Add the threat to children’s health, and we have all the ingredients for  a “Perfect Storm.”

We have two ways of examining the issue. One. The government’s food safety crisis management ability. Two. Cross-Strait relations.

In terms of crisis management, the Department of Health initially declared that no powdered milk had been imported to Taiwan. Instead, ARATS, on the other side of the Strait, informed us that powdered milk had been imported, long ago. Clearly, the Department of Health was not on top of matters. Next, the King Car Group voluntarily submitted its products for examination, taking full responsibility for their  safety. Only then did the Department of Health  realize the extent of the problem. In short, ARATS and the King Car Group had a better handle on the situation than the government agency in charge.

Having lost the initiative, the Liu cabinet panicked. Under pressure to prevent public harm and reduce public anxiety, it proposed two extreme measures. One. It announced that everyone was eligible for a free kidney stone checkup. Some in the medical community considered this  “unnecessarily provocative.” Two. It declared that all vegetable protein products, creamers, and dairy products manufactured on the Mainland would be removed from the shelves within 24 hours. The total value these products? Over one billion NT. A major controversy erupted over whether this sort of decision-making achieved  the proper balance between ensuring public safety and reducing public anxiety.

In terms of cross-Strait relations, the incident offers some interesting lessons. From the very beginning the cabinet found itself at a loss for words. By contrast, Hu Jintao blasted mainland bureaucrats as “callous and indifferent, cavalier in their attitude.” Wen Jiabao accused the manufacturers of “lacking  consciences.” By contrast, our cabinet’s remarks were either not enough or too much. At one time only  issues such as Tibet were considered too hot to handle. Who knew tainted milk would one day rival Tibet for political sensitivity?

Premier Liu Chao-hsuan proposed sending a delegation to the mainland to “investigate.” He also mentioned “demands for compensation.” This also touched raw nerves on both sides. Take  so-called “plant inspections.” Without private sector interaction between the import and export industries on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, officials representing the victims would find it hard to put forth even a quasi-official request. The government of the Republic of China cannot arbitrarily demand the right to inspect plants in Vietnam. By the same token, it would be hard to claim a right to inspect plants on Mainland China. Premier Liu’s proposals are predicated upon a  highly unrealistic improvement in cross-Strait relations.

Regarding demands for compensation, Experts wondered who would do the negotiating. MAC and ARATS? How would the  negotiations would be conducted? Would they resemble negotiations over WTO participation? Would they resemble negotiations over the 1992 Consensus? Many problems would arise. When Premier Liu raised the issue of “plant inspections” and “demands for compensation,” he may have pointed the way to long term solutions. But he also highlighted the lack of consensus and the lack of a solid legal foundation for cross-Strait interaction.

The tempest over melamine contaminated products has been a “shock to the system.” It has been a test of the Liu cabinet’s crisis management ability. It has also been a test of its ability to deal with cross-Strait affairs. The two sides are becoming increasingly open to each other. Civil sector frictions will become more common. If in the face of such incidents the government finds itself at a loss for words, if it does not know how to negotiate, if it is unable to weigh the pros and cons, it will be caught on the horns a dilemma.

For the Mainland authorities the melamine contamination scandal is an opportunity to engage in a major reevaluation of its political and economic system. How could such a major scandal be suppressed for over nine months? How could  a company as large as San Lu be so devoid of conscience? How could the media, with the exception of Shanghai’s East China Morning Post, have remained silent? As we engage in painful soul-searching, we realize the scandal has seriously undermined Mainland China’s international image. But it is also an opportunity for the Mainland authorities to reevaluate cross-Strait relations. The melamine contamination scandal occurred on Mainland China. It explains the lack of confidence in the Mainland’s political and economic system. It also explains the persistent mistrust between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

The melamine contamination scandal offers lessons for authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. As cross-Strait exchanges become more frequent, the two sides will need  an equitable and mutually beneficial framework for interaction. The contaminated powdered milk scandal must not be buried beneath a mountain of “sovereignty” issues. After all, such scandals involve the health and welfare of the people. If the two sides remain trapped  in a political quagmire, they  will undermine cross-strait reconciliation.

三聚氰胺與兩岸關係
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.25 02:53 am

三聚氰胺風暴方興未艾。這是一件牽涉廣大的食品安全事件，且這又是一件重大的兩岸事件；相激相盪，愈演愈烈。

倘若此事不是出自中國，比如狂牛病牛肉出在美國，事件的政治因素便較小，且美國牛肉在台灣的消費族群畢竟有限，因此衝擊亦有限；但此次三聚氰胺事件出自中國，政治因素立即升高，且乳製品的消費族群又無所不在，尤其威脅兒童健康，遂演成風暴。

因此，欲觀察或評論此事，可有兩個角度：一、政府對於食品安全風暴的危機處理；二、兩岸關係。

就危機處理言，衛生署一開始竟宣稱毒奶粉未有進口，反而是由對岸海協會告知早有銷台，足見衛生署的掌握有失周密；接著，又因金車公司主動送驗，並明快表示負起社會責任，衛生署始知大勢不妙。也就是說，主管當局對情勢的掌握，非但落後於海協會，亦落後於金車公司。

先 機一失，也就陷於手忙腳亂之局，整個內閣立即須在化解危害與降低社會恐慌之間進行兩難操作，如今則採取了兩個極端的作法：一、全民可免費檢查有否腎結石， 醫界有人認為是「無謂恐慌」；二、所有含大陸製植物性蛋白質、奶精及乳製品成分的產品，一律在二十四小時內下架，總值逾十億元。這類決策是否在化解危害與 降低恐慌之間取得了較佳平衡，已成社會議論的話題。

從兩岸關係的角度來看此事發展，尤可記取教訓。內閣一開始就陷於 言詞拿捏不易的情勢，後來連胡錦濤亦嚴斥中共官僚「麻木不仁、作風漂浮」，溫家寶也指涉案廠商「沒良心」；但我們內閣的發言，卻始終有「輕不得，重不得」 的困境；原來以為，只有西藏之類的政治問題難以表態，今後自當想一想類如毒奶粉事件該當如何措辭。

劉兆玄院長主張派 團赴大陸「調查」，並謂將要「索賠」，這也觸及了兩岸的痛處。所謂「查廠」，除非是雙方進出口業者的民間互動，恐怕很難由受害國的官方及準官方片面提出此 種要求；中華民國政府不可能任意主張赴越南查廠，同樣也很難主張赴中國大陸查廠。劉揆的主張若欲實現，須對兩岸關係充滿想像。

至 於索賠求償，有專家指出，立即會觸及談判平台的問題，無論是用兩會模式談判，或透過ＷＴＯ管道談判，或用「九二共識」模式談判，恐怕均有礙難之處。因此， 劉揆將情勢升高至「查廠／索賠」的高度，一方面也許指出了解決問題的方向，但另一方面其實也揭露了兩岸在面臨此類事件時，並無一套穩定的法理共識與一個有 效的互動平台。

這次三聚氰胺風暴，對劉內閣處理食品安全危機是一震撼教育，對劉內閣處理兩岸事務更是一尖銳的刺激。 畢竟，兩岸愈來愈開放，這類涉及「民生」的糾紛也必愈來愈多；倘若政府在面對此類事件時，不知如何措辭，不知如何交涉，不知如何訂定「得／失」的標準，必 將陷於左支右絀、進退兩難之境地。

對於中共當局而言，這次三聚氰胺事件，亦是對其政經體制上大反省的時機，何以如此 大案竟能至少壓了九個月，何以三鹿如此巨商亦「沒有良心」，又何以除上海東方早報外，新聞界皆遭「封口」，在在皆應痛思猛省；當然，此一事件除了重傷中國 的國際形象，也是中共思考兩岸關係的時機，三聚氰胺這類事件發生於中國，反映了大陸不可信任的政經機制，這也許正是兩岸始終存有隔閡的主要因素。

此一事件，對兩岸當局皆當有所啟示。當兩岸的交流愈來愈頻密，必然需要一套對等互利的法制平台；不能把毒奶粉這類事件的交涉，也壓在「主權定位」的五指山下。畢竟，這類事件牽涉重大的民生關懷，倘若還陷在政治文章的泥淖之中，絕對與兩岸所努力經營的和解氛圍背道而馳。

A Better Future Requires Fuller Preparation

A Better Future Requires Fuller Preparation
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2008

President Ma Ying-jeou recently made two proposals. He proposed allowing students with mainland academic credentials to come to Taiwan. He proposed transforming Sungshan Airport into an international airport. His basic direction is correct. But we would like to remind him that before introducing external resources, we must first make the required preparations. Only then can we establish a secure foundation for long-term development.

Recognizing mainland academic credentials, for example, is a macro level trend. It is eagerly anticipated and meaningful to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Cross-Strait exchanges have stimulated intellectual creativity on local campuses. They have helped raise academic standards. They have increased mutual understanding about each others’ life styles. They have narrowed the psychological distance between members of the younger generation.

Some concerns are of course pragmatic. People are choosing to have fewer children. Many universities on Taiwan have not been able to recruit enough students. They are on the verge of financial collapse. Therefore, many people hope that opening up our universities to mainland students will bring new financial opportunities, and allow universities to avoid bankruptcy. But if one’s health is bad, one should take the initiative to improve it. One should not look to an outside savior. That is both unrealistic and risky.

Over the years, Taiwan has established more and more universities. But their quality varies. Seven out of ten attend college. But the unemployment rate among university graduates has repeatedly reached new highs. If the marketplace and natural selection eliminate non-performing universities, they may actually improve the quality of education. Are non-performing universities hoping to be rescued? Are they counting on mainland students to rescue them? Are they defaulting on their responsibility to improve the quality of their teaching and their management? If so, they may forfeit the opportunity to save themselves.

It is easy to daydream. But reality may not be quite so rosy. The mainland has many talented people. Universities in Hong Kong and Singapore are offering scholarships to the best students. Mainland students have the option of studying in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Europe, and America. If mainland students are willing to pay high tuitions to study in Taiwan, it will be because they consider it a worthwhile investment. It will be because they think their diploma will have a market value. Universities on Taiwan must not rely on the label “Taiwan” to attract mainland students. If a university is of poor quality, mainland students will not be interested.

Some people have overly optimistic expectations about the Chinese mainland. Reality will always fall short of one’s expectations. For example, many people assumed agricultural exports to the mainland would be highly profitable. But once the novelty wore off, sales went from bad to worse. This must be chalked up to excessive optimism, to a failure to understand the mainland market, and to a lack of marketing channels. We failed to do our homework before entering the mainland market. We must revise our strategy. Only then can we re-enter the mainland market.

And so it was with mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan. The government promised three thousand tourists a day. But only two or three hundred showed up. The government forces mainland tourists to jump through too many hoops. It imposes restrictions on the places they may visit and the number of days they may stay. Mainland tourists are being seriously inconvenienced. If these problems are not resolved, nothing will change. Cross-strait exchanges must be based on mutual respect and mutual understanding. One must not harbor unrealistic expectations about the mainland while demanding nothing from oneself.

President Ma has proposed a “Northeast Asian Double Gold Hub.” His intention is to internationalize domestic airports, allowing Taipei’s Songshan Airport to link with Shanghai, Tokyo, and Seoul. This will save travel time and promote the development of science and technology. The plan is worthy of consideration. But before we attempt to take on such an ambitious plan we must ask ourselves, are we really ready?

As a link to international airports in Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai, Sung Shan Airport’s buildings and facilities are far from adequate. Sungshan Aiport was barely able to cope with renovations for mainland tourists. If Tokyo, Shanghai, and other popular routes are added, including routes to the US, then major expansion and renovation is necessary. But so far no department has either the plans or the budget. Before the government attempts to turn Taipei into a Northeast Asian Double Gold Hub, it needs to draw up plans for a new Sungshan Airport. Once those are complete, we can talk about the next step.

Sungshan Airport is too small and too shabby. Even the Chiang Kai-shek International Airport in Taoyuan, the ostensible gateway to the nation, is an embarrassment. Compared to the lively and distinctive airports in neighboring Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul, and Tokyo, it is hard to believe this is the official gateway to one of the Four Asian Dragons. Chiang Kai-shek International Airport is poorly equipped. Its services are minimal. Its shops are few and deserted. Its design lacks aesthetic appeal. We have talked about building a rapid transit system from the airport for the past 20 years. But so far we have nothing to show. Obviously the government needs to do far more to improve our air transportation infrastructure.

Taiwan has abundant opportunities for development. Its hard-working people have experienced difficulties in the past and overcome them one by one. We know how to stand on our own two feet. Depending upon others will only hinder our progress. Given fierce global competition, we must demand more from ourselves. We must remain strong and self-confident as we face future challenges.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.09.24
美好願景還需充分的準備
中時社論

馬英九總統日前提出承認大陸學歷讓陸生登台、松山機場國際化兩項政策，其基本方向都是正確的，在此我們想要提醒的是，要引進外來資源之前，我們必須先作好應有的準備，才能為一切長遠發展打造穩健的基礎。

以承認大陸學歷為例，這不只是大勢之所趨，對兩岸雙方也有正面意義，許多人因此引頸期盼。一方面，交流為校園帶來的切磋刺激，有助於提昇學術水準，並且增進兩岸人民對彼此生活、制度、價值觀的了解，拉近年輕世代的心理距離。

當然也有人抱著現實的考量。在少子化的潮流下，台灣許多大學近來苦於招不到足夠的學生，經營上搖搖欲墜，因此不少人寄望開放陸生能帶來新的財源，讓學校免於倒閉關門。然而，如果自己體質不良，卻不思檢討改進，完全把希望寄託於外來的拯救，不僅一廂情願，也是很危險的。

台灣這些年來廣設大學，品質的確良莠不齊，七分也可以上大學，但大學畢業生的失業率卻迭創新高，若能藉由市場機制自然淘汰不良大學，反而有助於教學品質。現在後段班的大學如果存有依賴之心，一味指望靠陸生解決困境，卻不積極改善教學與經營品質，結果可能會失去自救的機會。

做 白日夢容易，現實狀況卻未必那麼樂觀。大陸優秀人才非常多，香港、新加坡的大學均以優厚獎學金來爭取最頂尖的學生。對大陸學生而言，要留學，台、港、星乃 至歐、美、日，都是選擇之一。如果大陸學生願意付出高學費來台灣念書，必然是因為能得到足夠的收穫，文憑將來也有市場價值，不是光靠「台灣」這面招牌就可 以讓陸生把門檻踏穿的。大學本身素質太差的話，大陸學生也不見得會有興趣。

有些人對中國大陸有過於一廂情願的期待， 但期待和事實往往會有差距。例如原本以為農產品銷往大陸一定會大發利市，結果三分鐘熱度一過，銷售績效每下愈況，而這又必須歸咎於事前過度樂觀、不了解大 陸市場、以及缺乏整體行銷管道。在前進大陸市場之前，我們沒有做好準備功課，現在唯有重新檢討策略，才有能力再度進軍大陸。
同樣的情形也見 諸大陸觀光客來台，之前政府開出一天三千人的支票，結果如今一天不過二、三百人。但台灣對陸客來台手續、旅遊天數及地點的諸多規定，令陸客覺得頗不方便， 這些問題如果不解決，現況可能還會持續。兩岸交流必須本著彼此尊重、相互體諒，不能一面對大陸市場有不切實際的依賴，一面卻不對自己有所要求。

至於馬總統提出的「東北亞雙黃金航圈」主張，用意是重新把國內機場國際化，讓台北的松山機場和上海、東京、首爾連結，節省交通時間並促進科技發展，這也是值得肯定的政策方向。不過，同樣的，在實現這個遠大的計畫之前，我們也要先問問自己，到底準備好了沒有？
很 明顯的，以現在松山機場的建築和設備，遠遠不足以成為能和東京、首爾、上海對飛的國際機場。前不久光是要迎接陸客，就花了好一番整修才勉強能夠應付，如果 想再承擔東京、上海甚至美國等熱門航線，非進行大規模的擴建甚至全盤改建不可，但至今並沒有任何部門提出過這樣的計畫與預算。在擘畫台北未來成為東北亞雙 黃金航線之前，可能政府必須先規畫出一個新松山機場的建設計畫來；完成了，才能談到下一步。

其實，不要說松山機場太 過狹小寒酸，連代表國家門面的桃園國際機場，和亞洲鄰國的曼谷、新加坡、香港、首爾、東京等熱鬧氣派又各具特色的機場相比，也是相形見絀到令人汗顏的地 步，簡直無法相信這是亞洲四小龍之一的最大國際機場。桃園國際機場不只設備簡陋、服務陽春、店面少而冷清、設計缺乏文化美感，機場捷運談了廿年，到現在八 字依舊看不到一撇。很顯然的，對於改善台灣的飛航環境與交通條件，我們還有很多需要努力的地方。

台灣有良好的發展條件，以及優秀勤奮的人民，過去經歷過多少難關，我們都一一克服了，這樣的台灣，應該最懂得自立自強之道。依賴只會阻礙進步，靠別人不如靠自己。在當前激烈的全球化競爭下，台灣必須對自己有更嚴格的鞭策，才能堅強自信地面對所有的挑戰。