Knowing When to Do Something and When To Do Nothing

Knowing When to Do Something and When To Do Nothing
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2008

The global financial crisis has been followed by a serious recession. The world’s governments are resorting to various policies to prop up their stock markets and to save their economies. At home and abroad, a number of unprecedented policies to prop up the stock market have emerged, all of which sound reasonable. With so many unprecedented packages to rescue the market and the economy, we hope that in addition to pursuing timely interventions, the government knows when to do nothing.

Policies to save the economy can be divided into several types. One type is cost effective, i.e., low in cost, high in effectiveness. Another type cost ineffective, i.e.,high in cost, low in effectiveness, or time sensitive. The worst type is high in cost and utterly ineffective, or worse, high in cost and counterproductive. One should implement the first type as much as possible. One should implement the second time when necessary. One should never implement the third type, ever. Otherwise, one will visit disaster upon one’s children and grandchildren.

Cost effective policies are hard to come by. But they do exist. When certain banks experienced a run on their deposits, or even problems with liquidity, Premier Liu promptly announced that all bank deposits would be fully protected. This immediately restored financial stability. This was an example of not spending a single penny while achieving the government’s policy objectives.

Cost effective policies must be implemented at the systemic level. One must not simply throw money at the problem. The government is supposed to work through the system and make improvements, reducing operating and transaction costs, thereby boosting the economy. A few days ago the G-8 announced housing market rescue measures. Most of thse involved systemic reform, such as the simplification of administrative procedures to reduce transaction and operating costs. Such policies are cost effective and reliable. Other cost effective and reliable policies include relaxing restrictions, introducing foreign capital, foreign investment, and even foreign personnel.

The second type of policy includes the recent consumer voucher policy. It cost over 80 billion NT, a huge investment. It may boost the economy. But when one considers the public cost against the benefits, it is unlikely to increase economic growth as forecast by the Council for Economic Planning and Development.

Furthermore, the first wave of policies have already been launched. The second wave involves increasing domestic demand. The first wave cost over 60 billion NT. The second wave will cost an estimated 400 billion NT. The cost is immense. To boost the economy, the cost of public works is what it is. There is no alternative. It is highly effective. Moreover, Taiwan’s infrastructure remains inadequate. To vigorously promote pubic works during an economic downturn is an opportunity to provide a sound infrastructure at low cost. Therefore increasing domestic demand deserves our support.

The first problem is time sensitivity. If the government can not improve its administrative efficiency, if it cannot completely prevent corruption in the procurement system, these expenditures will not rescue the economy and will not be effective. The second problem is the proper allocation of funds. From the perspective of boosting the economy, money spent is presumed to be well spent. But from the perspective of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money, government funds must be spend with discretion. They must not wind up as loot divided among corrupt politicians and vendors.

Other policies such as the National Stabilization Fund, the four funds to support the stock market, and the securities transaction fee cuts, are clearly cost ineffective and should be avoided. The National Stabilization Fund has already been implemented. We are now riding the tiger. We must skillfully dismount. We must not stubbornly prop up the index. The securities transaction fee cuts are best quietly terminated or not implemented. The government must proceed from a systemic level, and not throw money at the problem in an attempt to prop up the index.

The final type of policy should never be implemented, ever. Such policies include increasing funding for the National Development Fund to the tune of trillions. One example is the attempt to rescue the DRAM industry. The government proposes investing hard-earned taxpayer dollars on sunset industries it is incapable of operating, yet hopes to resuscitate. This approach provides sweetheart deals to favored businesses and squanders the nation’s wealth. It leaves one speechless. From an industry perspective, the DRAM industry is not so important that it would result in the death of our domestic IT industry. Moreover, DRAM industry-related companies have taken out loans worth hundreds of billions of dollars from the domestic banking system. Creditor banks can perform a supervisory function. They can take over these companies and and restructure them. There is no reason for the government to invest huge sums of money to save them.

Consider lessons from the previous administration. Decisions about which enterprises need to be saved and can be saved will be made by industry peers and the banking industry. They will make professional judgments and decisions. But once the public sector intervenes, then all sorts of problems arise. During Taiwan’s homegrown financial crisis, decisions were made by whoever had the ear of those at the top, whoever had access to Boss Liu. Under Democratic Progressive Party misrule, such decisions led to the “Cape Seven Billion.” Today it’s DRAM. Tomorrow it might be flat panels or automobiles. The day after that, petrochemicals. How long must the government keep rescuing them?

Actually, the government has yet to intervene. We have already seen how DRAM related industries have adapted to survive on their own. PSC may sell shares to Rexchip Elpida. Formosa Plastics may make loans to Micron. Micron may acquire a stake in Inotera. The government may express concern for the plight of industry. It may help industries make breakthroughs. It may help revive them. But it must never take money from the state treasury and directly invest it in the companies. In order to rescue the housing market, the government is requiring banks to increase housing loans to 80%. It is even offering loan guarantees and business relief. The government ought to proceed with caution. In principle it ought to respect the professional judgement and decisions of the banking industry. It must not force bad debt upon banks. Otherwise the banking system will collapse.

In the face of severe economic recession, The government should do something. But we look forward even more to a prudent government doing nothing, in order to avoid even more serious consequences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.11.28
有所為與有所不為─談救市
中時社論

全球金融海嘯之後，接踵而來的嚴重衰退，讓各國政府祭出各種救市、救經濟的政策。國內外許多「前所未有」的救市政策都出籠，而且似乎都言之成理。但在這麼多前所未有的救市、救經濟的政策中，我們還是希望政府除了追求時效，要有所為外，更要「有所不為」。

在各種挽救經濟的政策中，大概可分幾種：一種是花費小而效益高者，一種則是花費多但效益低、或時效上有問題者；最差者當然是花費大又徒勞無功，甚至引發許多不良後遺症者。第一種，當然要努力多做，第二種則酌情推動，至於第三種則萬萬不可做，否則禍遺子孫。

花費小而效益高的政策，坦白說：難求。但也不是完全沒有。在部分銀行出現存款流失、甚至有流動性問題時，行政院劉院長迅速宣布給予全部銀行百分之百存款保障，立即讓金融體系恢復安定，不花半毛錢達成政策目的，就是一個最佳典範。

此類花費小而效益高的政策，必須多從制度面、少從「灑錢面」著眼。畢竟政府原本就可透過法令與制度的改善提升，達到降低「經營與交易成本」、提振經濟的目 的。以日前宣布的八大救房市措施而言，大部分屬於制度面的改變，簡化行政流程、降低交易與經營成本，應屬花費小而效益可期待之政策。其它如放寬限制，引進 外來的資金、投資、甚至人員，都屬這類政策。

至於第二種政策，如最近政策「主推」的消費券政策，花了八百多億元，投入龐大；但最後能發揮提振景氣的效果，雖然肯定會有，但因考量到民眾消費原有的替代效果，不太可能發揮如經建會預估增加的經濟成長率。

另外，已推出一波，目前又推第二波的擴大內需政策，第一次花了六百多億元，第二波則以四千億為目標，花費非常大。以提振景氣效果而言，公共建設花出多少錢 就是多少，不會有「所得替代效應」，效益相當大；更何況，台灣基礎建設仍有許多不足之處，在景氣低迷時大力推動建設是「以便宜價格建構良好基礎建設」的契 機。因此，擴大內需絕對值得支持做。

但問題，第一在時效，如果政府無法提升行政效率、無法去除完全防弊為出發點的採購制，這些支出，只能說是緩不濟急，效益不大；第二則是錢是否花在刀口上。 雖然，站在提振景氣的立場，錢花出去就算數、就是有效，但站在善用民脂民膏的立場，政府還是有必要慎用經費，不要流於分贓式的建設分配。

其它如國安基金與四大基金護盤股市、減徵證交稅等政策，大致可看出是花費大而效益小者，能免則免。國安基金已進場，算是騎虎難下了，但要技巧的淡出，別再 硬拉指數、硬撐某個指數關卡；減徵證交稅則能悄然收場不實施最好。未來對股市，政府還是該從制度面著手拉抬，而非以灑錢方式護盤。

最後一類政策，則萬萬不可做，這種政策，以增加國發基金至兆元，要投入救DRAM等產業為代表。坦白說，政府拿民脂民膏投資瀕臨倒閉的企業，而政府又絕對 沒有能力經營，讓此企業起死回生，這種作法，除了圖利特定企業、浪費國庫外，實在難以找到其它形容詞了。再以產業面看，DRAM的產業關聯，絕對沒有重要 到倒閉會讓國內科技產業進入死境。更何況，以該產業相關企業在國內銀行體系數千億元的借貸而言，債權銀行團就可扮演監督、接管、重整的重任。政府絕沒有理 由、也不該投入鉅資去挽救。

更何況，從前朝的例子來看，哪些企業要救、能救，從產業同業與銀行團眼中，會有較專業的評估與抉擇，但一旦變成公部門行之，就變成弊端叢生。本土金融風暴 時，抉擇標準是誰上達天聽，誰攀上劉大掌櫃；民進黨時，看來就是「海角七億」在決定。今日是DRAM，明天是面板、汽車，後天是石化，政府要救到何時才 休？

事實上，政府還沒介入，我們就已看到DRAM相關業者就自行調整求生存，如力晶賣出瑞晶股權給爾必達，台塑借款予美光，新美光取得華亞科股權。對於企業與 產業的困境，政府可以關注、協助突破、設法起死回生，但絕對不能拿國庫的錢去直接投資入股。另外為救房市，要求銀行貸款成數提高到八成、或甚至某些成數由 政府信保基金保證、企業紓困機制等，政府都該審慎為之。原則上都該尊重銀行的專業判斷與決定，絕對不能「硬塞」爛債權給銀行，否則銀行體系將會崩潰。

面對嚴重的經濟衰退，政府是該有所作為，但我們更期待，政府能審慎的有所不為，以免為經濟帶來更嚴重的後遺症。

Knowing When to Do Something and When To Do Nothing

Knowing When to Do Something and When To Do Nothing
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 28, 2008

The global financial crisis has been followed by a serious recession. The world’s governments are resorting to various policies to prop up their stock markets and to save their economies. At home and abroad, a number of unprecedented policies to prop up the stock market have emerged, all of which sound reasonable. With so many unprecedented packages to rescue the market and the economy, we hope that in addition to pursuing timely interventions, the government knows when to do nothing.

Policies to save the economy can be divided into several types. One type is cost effective, i.e., low in cost, high in effectiveness. Another type cost ineffective, i.e.,high in cost, low in effectiveness, or time sensitive. The worst type is high in cost and utterly ineffective, or worse, high in cost and counterproductive. One should implement the first type as much as possible. One should implement the second time when necessary. One should never implement the third type, ever. Otherwise, one will visit disaster upon one’s children and grandchildren.

Cost effective policies are hard to come by. But they do exist. When certain banks experienced a run on their deposits, or even problems with liquidity, Premier Liu promptly announced that all bank deposits would be fully protected. This immediately restored financial stability. This was an example of not spending a single penny while achieving the government’s policy objectives.

Cost effective policies must be implemented at the systemic level. One must not simply throw money at the problem. The government is supposed to work through the system and make improvements, reducing operating and transaction costs, thereby boosting the economy. A few days ago the G-8 announced housing market rescue measures. Most of thse involved systemic reform, such as the simplification of administrative procedures to reduce transaction and operating costs. Such policies are cost effective and reliable. Other cost effective and reliable policies include relaxing restrictions, introducing foreign capital, foreign investment, and even foreign personnel.

The second type of policy includes the recent consumer voucher policy. It cost over 80 billion NT, a huge investment. It may boost the economy. But when one considers the public cost against the benefits, it is unlikely to increase economic growth as forecast by the Council for Economic Planning and Development.

Furthermore, the first wave of policies have already been launched. The second wave involves increasing domestic demand. The first wave cost over 60 billion NT. The second wave will cost an estimated 400 billion NT. The cost is immense. To boost the economy, the cost of public works is what it is. There is no alternative. It is highly effective. Moreover, Taiwan’s infrastructure remains inadequate. To vigorously promote pubic works during an economic downturn is an opportunity to provide a sound infrastructure at low cost. Therefore increasing domestic demand deserves our support.

The first problem is time sensitivity. If the government can not improve its administrative efficiency, if it cannot completely prevent corruption in the procurement system, these expenditures will not rescue the economy and will not be effective. The second problem is the proper allocation of funds. From the perspective of boosting the economy, money spent is presumed to be well spent. But from the perspective of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money, government funds must be spend with discretion. They must not wind up as loot divided among corrupt politicians and vendors.

Other policies such as the National Stabilization Fund, the four funds to support the stock market, and the securities transaction fee cuts, are clearly cost ineffective and should be avoided. The National Stabilization Fund has already been implemented. We are now riding the tiger. We must skillfully dismount. We must not stubbornly prop up the index. The securities transaction fee cuts are best quietly terminated or not implemented. The government must proceed from a systemic level, and not throw money at the problem in an attempt to prop up the index.

The final type of policy should never be implemented, ever. Such policies include increasing funding for the National Development Fund to the tune of trillions. One example is the attempt to rescue the DRAM industry. The government proposes investing hard-earned taxpayer dollars on sunset industries it is incapable of operating, yet hopes to resuscitate. This approach provides sweetheart deals to favored businesses and squanders the nation’s wealth. It leaves one speechless. From an industry perspective, the DRAM industry is not so important that it would result in the death of our domestic IT industry. Moreover, DRAM industry-related companies have taken out loans worth hundreds of billions of dollars from the domestic banking system. Creditor banks can perform a supervisory function. They can take over these companies and and restructure them. There is no reason for the government to invest huge sums of money to save them.

Consider lessons from the previous administration. Decisions about which enterprises need to be saved and can be saved will be made by industry peers and the banking industry. They will make professional judgments and decisions. But once the public sector intervenes, then all sorts of problems arise. During Taiwan’s homegrown financial crisis, decisions were made by whoever had the ear of those at the top, whoever had access to Boss Liu. Under Democratic Progressive Party misrule, such decisions led to the “Cape Seven Billion.” Today it’s DRAM. Tomorrow it might be flat panels or automobiles. The day after that, petrochemicals. How long must the government keep rescuing them?

Actually, the government has yet to intervene. We have already seen how DRAM related industries have adapted to survive on their own. PSC may sell shares to Rexchip Elpida. Formosa Plastics may make loans to Micron. Micron may acquire a stake in Inotera. The government may express concern for the plight of industry. It may help industries make breakthroughs. It may help revive them. But it must never take money from the state treasury and directly invest it in the companies. In order to rescue the housing market, the government is requiring banks to increase housing loans to 80%. It is even offering loan guarantees and business relief. The government ought to proceed with caution. In principle it ought to respect the professional judgement and decisions of the banking industry. It must not force bad debt upon banks. Otherwise the banking system will collapse.

In the face of severe economic recession, The government should do something. But we look forward even more to a prudent government doing nothing, in order to avoid even more serious consequences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.11.28
有所為與有所不為─談救市
中時社論

全球金融海嘯之後，接踵而來的嚴重衰退，讓各國政府祭出各種救市、救經濟的政策。國內外許多「前所未有」的救市政策都出籠，而且似乎都言之成理。但在這麼多前所未有的救市、救經濟的政策中，我們還是希望政府除了追求時效，要有所為外，更要「有所不為」。

在各種挽救經濟的政策中，大概可分幾種：一種是花費小而效益高者，一種則是花費多但效益低、或時效上有問題者；最差者當然是花費大又徒勞無功，甚至引發許多不良後遺症者。第一種，當然要努力多做，第二種則酌情推動，至於第三種則萬萬不可做，否則禍遺子孫。

花費小而效益高的政策，坦白說：難求。但也不是完全沒有。在部分銀行出現存款流失、甚至有流動性問題時，行政院劉院長迅速宣布給予全部銀行百分之百存款保障，立即讓金融體系恢復安定，不花半毛錢達成政策目的，就是一個最佳典範。

此類花費小而效益高的政策，必須多從制度面、少從「灑錢面」著眼。畢竟政府原本就可透過法令與制度的改善提升，達到降低「經營與交易成本」、提振經濟的目 的。以日前宣布的八大救房市措施而言，大部分屬於制度面的改變，簡化行政流程、降低交易與經營成本，應屬花費小而效益可期待之政策。其它如放寬限制，引進 外來的資金、投資、甚至人員，都屬這類政策。

至於第二種政策，如最近政策「主推」的消費券政策，花了八百多億元，投入龐大；但最後能發揮提振景氣的效果，雖然肯定會有，但因考量到民眾消費原有的替代效果，不太可能發揮如經建會預估增加的經濟成長率。

另外，已推出一波，目前又推第二波的擴大內需政策，第一次花了六百多億元，第二波則以四千億為目標，花費非常大。以提振景氣效果而言，公共建設花出多少錢 就是多少，不會有「所得替代效應」，效益相當大；更何況，台灣基礎建設仍有許多不足之處，在景氣低迷時大力推動建設是「以便宜價格建構良好基礎建設」的契 機。因此，擴大內需絕對值得支持做。

但問題，第一在時效，如果政府無法提升行政效率、無法去除完全防弊為出發點的採購制，這些支出，只能說是緩不濟急，效益不大；第二則是錢是否花在刀口上。 雖然，站在提振景氣的立場，錢花出去就算數、就是有效，但站在善用民脂民膏的立場，政府還是有必要慎用經費，不要流於分贓式的建設分配。

其它如國安基金與四大基金護盤股市、減徵證交稅等政策，大致可看出是花費大而效益小者，能免則免。國安基金已進場，算是騎虎難下了，但要技巧的淡出，別再 硬拉指數、硬撐某個指數關卡；減徵證交稅則能悄然收場不實施最好。未來對股市，政府還是該從制度面著手拉抬，而非以灑錢方式護盤。

最後一類政策，則萬萬不可做，這種政策，以增加國發基金至兆元，要投入救DRAM等產業為代表。坦白說，政府拿民脂民膏投資瀕臨倒閉的企業，而政府又絕對 沒有能力經營，讓此企業起死回生，這種作法，除了圖利特定企業、浪費國庫外，實在難以找到其它形容詞了。再以產業面看，DRAM的產業關聯，絕對沒有重要 到倒閉會讓國內科技產業進入死境。更何況，以該產業相關企業在國內銀行體系數千億元的借貸而言，債權銀行團就可扮演監督、接管、重整的重任。政府絕沒有理 由、也不該投入鉅資去挽救。

更何況，從前朝的例子來看，哪些企業要救、能救，從產業同業與銀行團眼中，會有較專業的評估與抉擇，但一旦變成公部門行之，就變成弊端叢生。本土金融風暴 時，抉擇標準是誰上達天聽，誰攀上劉大掌櫃；民進黨時，看來就是「海角七億」在決定。今日是DRAM，明天是面板、汽車，後天是石化，政府要救到何時才 休？

事實上，政府還沒介入，我們就已看到DRAM相關業者就自行調整求生存，如力晶賣出瑞晶股權給爾必達，台塑借款予美光，新美光取得華亞科股權。對於企業與 產業的困境，政府可以關注、協助突破、設法起死回生，但絕對不能拿國庫的錢去直接投資入股。另外為救房市，要求銀行貸款成數提高到八成、或甚至某些成數由 政府信保基金保證、企業紓困機制等，政府都該審慎為之。原則上都該尊重銀行的專業判斷與決定，絕對不能「硬塞」爛債權給銀行，否則銀行體系將會崩潰。

面對嚴重的經濟衰退，政府是該有所作為，但我們更期待，政府能審慎的有所不為，以免為經濟帶來更嚴重的後遺症。

We Three: Real Life Beyond the Political Smoke

We Three: Real Life Beyond the Political Smoke
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2008

“We Three” is a documentary film produced by director Hou Hsiao-hsien for the Taipei City Labor Bureau. Next to a old wall on Heping East Road, Luo Mao-sheng stands next to his motorized coffee cart. He stands for up to 12 hours on his artificial left leg. This is how he makes his living. This is how he supports his wife who has glaucoma, and his visually-impaired son. He was once a business manager. He once sold lottery tickets. Now he sells coffee. He depends upon customers who patronize him partly out of charity. Luo Mao-sheng has endured setbacks. But every day he must think about how to make it through tomorrow.

This is the broad outline of “We Three.” The entire family is physically handicapped. Yet they want to maintain their dignity by supporting themselves. Luo and his family do not complain about their fates. They do not accuse the government or society of being unjust. They merely struggle to make their way and help each other. In fact, “We Three” is not just about Luo Mao-sheng and his family. It is also a documentary about many workers on Taiwan. It may not be as entertaining or romantic as “Cape No. 7.” But the half-hour documentary is well worth watching, particularly for politicians who have forgotten how real people live.

The global financial crisis has struck. Taiwan’s economy is sunk in depression. The justice system is investigating the embezzlement of billions from the public coffers by a former president. Ruling and opposition party politicians are arguing about whether to support Ah-Bian and whether to issue consumer vouchers. The opposition party is repeatedly inciting the public to denounce the judicial system. The political atmosphere is charged with tension. The contrast with the quiet struggle of a roadside coffee vendor seems ludicrously ironic. For the past eight years a bitter confrontation has prevailed between Blue and Green. Politically, the public on Taiwan is utterly incapable of arriving at a consensus. There is no room even for the discussion of non-political issues such as economics. This is the saddest fact of all. When even life-saving measures such as consumer vouchers are deliberately obstructed, just how much does the hardship endured by ordinary citizens figure in the eyes of our politicians?

It’s official. Taiwan politics is more and more out of touch with its civil society. Politics is less and less capable of solving the problems that confront individuals and society. Over the past decade, politicians have busied themselves “amending” the constitution, yammering about reform, engaging in partisan infighting, concocting a rationale for a “Nation of Taiwan.” They have consumed most of the nation’s resources and energy. They have shunted aside problems affecting the real lives of ordinary people. The ruling party is busy filling the gaps and fighting corruption. The opposition party meanwhile, is busy protesting. Politics is invariably about venting one’s spleen and inciting hatred, leaving people with deeper and harder to heal wounds. Has the meaning of democracy been reduced to this?

More and more people must turn off the TV to avoid having their mood destroyed by ugly political spectacles. When people watch the documentary “We Three,” their throats may well be choked with emotion. Luo Mao-sheng has his own way of thinking about the future. He stands on the beach alone. The chilly sea breeze and waves wash up against him, allowing him to organize his thoughts. From time to time a large wave will stagger him. On occasion it may dislodge his artificial leg. Luo Mao-sheng must then stand on one leg amidst pounding waves to recover his artificial leg. We do not know whether Luo Mao-sheng has found a way out. But those who wield immense state power and public resources ought to ask themselves what sort of opportunities have I given individuals such as Luo?

Entering the second half of this year, Taiwan’s economy is experiencing negative growth. Next year will be worse. A wave of corporate layoffs and plant closings will result in half a million people losing their jobs by the end of the year. We need not wait until things come to that. We can already see the future. By that time, not just handicapped workers, but even privileged white-collar workers will face the same fate. By then, will Luo Mao-sheng’s coffee cart still be able to hold out? Will the customers who support him continue doing so? This may not be a question Luo Mao-sheng can answer. But it is a question those in power must ask themselves.

Each night Luo Mao-sheng roasts his own coffee beans. He knows all about the characteristics of coffee beans from various countries. Who would have imagined that a one-legged handicapped man would invest so much effort into operating a simple coffee cart? His only son must use a magnifying glass to read, putting his right eye up against the page. He hopes that by repeatedly taking scholastic exams he can find employment. The economy has hit bottom. Luo Mao-sheng has provided a reminder to all workers not to lose heart. He has also reminded the ruling and opposition parties to set aside their political differences, and turn their attention back to the real life concerns of ordinary people.

The three members of the Luo family do not flinch in the face of adversity. They struggle to remain together and to survive. Taiwan has been torn apart by “ethnic” (community group) differences and ideological differences. Whether the Great Depression can be overcome depends upon whether we can avoid interal strife. Political decline is the result of an “us vs. them” mentality in the hearts of politicians. They see only “us” and “them,” They have fogotten that We the People are “them.”

他們三個：回眸政治硝煙外的真實人生
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.27 02:49 am

「我們三個」，是北市勞工局委託導演侯孝賢監製的一部勞工紀錄片。

在 和平東路一堵老牆下，羅茂盛守著兼代步的摩托行動咖啡車，扶著左腿的義肢，一站就是十二小時。這是他全部的生計，為養活青光眼的妻子和弱視的兒子，他做過 管理員、賣過彩券，最後摸索出賣咖啡這條路。靠著客人半贊助式的愛心，羅茂盛熬過了挫折的日子，但他每天還在思考：未來的路要怎麼繼續走下去？

這 是「我們三個」的故事梗概。一家三口都是身障，卻希望有尊嚴地維持自己的生活，羅茂盛一家沒有抱怨命運，也不質疑政府或社會不公，只是不斷地摸索嘗試、互 相扶持。「我們三個」其實不只是羅茂盛一家的故事，也是台灣許多勞動者的人生紀實；雖沒有「海角七號」的趣味和浪漫，這部半小時的紀錄片卻值得一看，特別 對那些忘記人間真相的政治人而言。

當金融海嘯狂襲全球，當台灣經濟陷入景氣嚴冬，當司法正在偵辦幾億、幾十億的貪瀆案件之際，朝野政客卻 還在為要不要挺扁、要不要發消費券作無謂的叫罵，在野黨一再發動群眾向司法示威。大環境氛圍的嗆辣，對照這個路邊咖啡攤靜默的生活掙扎，更顯荒謬而諷刺。 過去八年在慘烈的藍綠對峙下，台灣在政治上不僅徹底失去了凝聚共識的能力，即連非關政治的經濟議題也失去理性討論的空間，這是台灣最可悲的墮落。如果連消 費券這種緊急救命措施都遭刻意延宕，政治人物眼裡還會有市井小民的生活苦難嗎？

事實如此，台灣的政治不僅越來越和社會脫節，甚至可以說政 治解決人民及社會問題的能力也越來越弱。過去十年，政治人物忙著修憲、忙著談改革、忙著政黨惡鬥、忙著建構台灣國論述，消耗掉國家絕大部分的資源與精力， 有血有肉的民生問題被擺到一旁。如今，執政黨忙著挖貪補漏，在野黨忙著反嗆拉扯，政治只是一味發洩憤怒、激盪仇恨，留給民眾的則是難以平癒的創傷。民主對 人民的意義，為何會窄化及矮化到此一地步？

當越來越多人必須關掉電視，避免被醜陋的政治景象擾亂心情，人們看完「我們三個」這部紀錄片， 可能會有喉嚨被卡住的感覺。羅茂盛思考未來的方式很特別，他獨自到海邊，藉著海風的清冷和海浪的沖刷，來整理自己的思緒。大浪不時打得他踉蹌跌坐，有時甚 至打掉他的義肢，羅茂盛必須奮起單腿，在千鈞一髮中向海浪奪回自己的義肢。我們不知道羅茂盛從險惡的海浪看到什麼出路，但那些掌握有偌大公權力和公資源的 人應該問問：自己給了這樣的人什麼機會？

台灣經濟今年下半年已進入負成長，明年將更惡化，隨著企業裁員和關廠潮，到年底將有五十萬人失去 工作。不必走到那一刻，我們已可預見未來的景象；到了那種時候，別說是身障的勞工，優秀的白領階級一樣將同遭其殃。屆時，羅茂盛的咖啡攤還撐不撐得下去？ 支持他的顧客還會不會繼續出現？這也許不是羅茂盛能回答的問題，卻是主政者該捫心自問的課題。

羅茂盛夜裡在家中自行烘焙咖啡豆，對各國咖 啡品類的脾性皆能娓娓道來；誰能想像，一位獨腿人如此用心經營他簡單的咖啡攤？就像他的獨子，須藉放大鏡將右眼緊貼在書頁上才能閱讀，也只是寄望不斷參加 考試取得就業機會。在經濟的退潮時分，羅茂盛一家的堅毅和無怨，除了提醒所有勞動者不要灰心喪志，也提醒朝野政黨應拋開務虛的政治硝煙，回到關注人民真實 生活的主軸來。

他們三個，在困境中不離不棄，共同維護一個家庭的生存和希望。而台灣，這個被族群和政治歧見撕裂的家庭，有沒有辦法克服大衰退及大蕭條，端視它有沒有擺脫內耗的能力。切記，政治的沉淪皆由於政客心中只有敵我，只有「我們」和「你們」，卻忘了還有老百姓「他們」。

We Three: Real Life Beyond the Political Smoke

We Three: Real Life Beyond the Political Smoke
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2008

“We Three” is a documentary film produced by director Hou Hsiao-hsien for the Taipei City Labor Bureau. Next to a old wall on Heping East Road, Luo Mao-sheng stands next to his motorized coffee cart. He stands for up to 12 hours on his artificial left leg. This is how he makes his living. This is how he supports his wife who has glaucoma, and his visually-impaired son. He was once a business manager. He once sold lottery tickets. Now he sells coffee. He depends upon customers who patronize him partly out of charity. Luo Mao-sheng has endured setbacks. But every day he must think about how to make it through tomorrow.

This is the broad outline of “We Three.” The entire family is physically handicapped. Yet they want to maintain their dignity by supporting themselves. Luo and his family do not complain about their fates. They do not accuse the government or society of being unjust. They merely struggle to make their way and help each other. In fact, “We Three” is not just about Luo Mao-sheng and his family. It is also a documentary about many workers on Taiwan. It may not be as entertaining or romantic as “Cape No. 7.” But the half-hour documentary is well worth watching, particularly for politicians who have forgotten how real people live.

The global financial crisis has struck. Taiwan’s economy is sunk in depression. The justice system is investigating the embezzlement of billions from the public coffers by a former president. Ruling and opposition party politicians are arguing about whether to support Ah-Bian and whether to issue consumer vouchers. The opposition party is repeatedly inciting the public to denounce the judicial system. The political atmosphere is charged with tension. The contrast with the quiet struggle of a roadside coffee vendor seems ludicrously ironic. For the past eight years a bitter confrontation has prevailed between Blue and Green. Politically, the public on Taiwan is utterly incapable of arriving at a consensus. There is no room even for the discussion of non-political issues such as economics. This is the saddest fact of all. When even life-saving measures such as consumer vouchers are deliberately obstructed, just how much does the hardship endured by ordinary citizens figure in the eyes of our politicians?

It’s official. Taiwan politics is more and more out of touch with its civil society. Politics is less and less capable of solving the problems that confront individuals and society. Over the past decade, politicians have busied themselves “amending” the constitution, yammering about reform, engaging in partisan infighting, concocting a rationale for a “Nation of Taiwan.” They have consumed most of the nation’s resources and energy. They have shunted aside problems affecting the real lives of ordinary people. The ruling party is busy filling the gaps and fighting corruption. The opposition party meanwhile, is busy protesting. Politics is invariably about venting one’s spleen and inciting hatred, leaving people with deeper and harder to heal wounds. Has the meaning of democracy been reduced to this?

More and more people must turn off the TV to avoid having their mood destroyed by ugly political spectacles. When people watch the documentary “We Three,” their throats may well be choked with emotion. Luo Mao-sheng has his own way of thinking about the future. He stands on the beach alone. The chilly sea breeze and waves wash up against him, allowing him to organize his thoughts. From time to time a large wave will stagger him. On occasion it may dislodge his artificial leg. Luo Mao-sheng must then stand on one leg amidst pounding waves to recover his artificial leg. We do not know whether Luo Mao-sheng has found a way out. But those who wield immense state power and public resources ought to ask themselves what sort of opportunities have I given individuals such as Luo?

Entering the second half of this year, Taiwan’s economy is experiencing negative growth. Next year will be worse. A wave of corporate layoffs and plant closings will result in half a million people losing their jobs by the end of the year. We need not wait until things come to that. We can already see the future. By that time, not just handicapped workers, but even privileged white-collar workers will face the same fate. By then, will Luo Mao-sheng’s coffee cart still be able to hold out? Will the customers who support him continue doing so? This may not be a question Luo Mao-sheng can answer. But it is a question those in power must ask themselves.

Each night Luo Mao-sheng roasts his own coffee beans. He knows all about the characteristics of coffee beans from various countries. Who would have imagined that a one-legged handicapped man would invest so much effort into operating a simple coffee cart? His only son must use a magnifying glass to read, putting his right eye up against the page. He hopes that by repeatedly taking scholastic exams he can find employment. The economy has hit bottom. Luo Mao-sheng has provided a reminder to all workers not to lose heart. He has also reminded the ruling and opposition parties to set aside their political differences, and turn their attention back to the real life concerns of ordinary people.

The three members of the Luo family do not flinch in the face of adversity. They struggle to remain together and to survive. Taiwan has been torn apart by “ethnic” (community group) differences and ideological differences. Whether the Great Depression can be overcome depends upon whether we can avoid interal strife. Political decline is the result of an “us vs. them” mentality in the hearts of politicians. They see only “us” and “them,” They have fogotten that We the People are “them.”

他們三個：回眸政治硝煙外的真實人生
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.27 02:49 am

「我們三個」，是北市勞工局委託導演侯孝賢監製的一部勞工紀錄片。

在 和平東路一堵老牆下，羅茂盛守著兼代步的摩托行動咖啡車，扶著左腿的義肢，一站就是十二小時。這是他全部的生計，為養活青光眼的妻子和弱視的兒子，他做過 管理員、賣過彩券，最後摸索出賣咖啡這條路。靠著客人半贊助式的愛心，羅茂盛熬過了挫折的日子，但他每天還在思考：未來的路要怎麼繼續走下去？

這 是「我們三個」的故事梗概。一家三口都是身障，卻希望有尊嚴地維持自己的生活，羅茂盛一家沒有抱怨命運，也不質疑政府或社會不公，只是不斷地摸索嘗試、互 相扶持。「我們三個」其實不只是羅茂盛一家的故事，也是台灣許多勞動者的人生紀實；雖沒有「海角七號」的趣味和浪漫，這部半小時的紀錄片卻值得一看，特別 對那些忘記人間真相的政治人而言。

當金融海嘯狂襲全球，當台灣經濟陷入景氣嚴冬，當司法正在偵辦幾億、幾十億的貪瀆案件之際，朝野政客卻 還在為要不要挺扁、要不要發消費券作無謂的叫罵，在野黨一再發動群眾向司法示威。大環境氛圍的嗆辣，對照這個路邊咖啡攤靜默的生活掙扎，更顯荒謬而諷刺。 過去八年在慘烈的藍綠對峙下，台灣在政治上不僅徹底失去了凝聚共識的能力，即連非關政治的經濟議題也失去理性討論的空間，這是台灣最可悲的墮落。如果連消 費券這種緊急救命措施都遭刻意延宕，政治人物眼裡還會有市井小民的生活苦難嗎？

事實如此，台灣的政治不僅越來越和社會脫節，甚至可以說政 治解決人民及社會問題的能力也越來越弱。過去十年，政治人物忙著修憲、忙著談改革、忙著政黨惡鬥、忙著建構台灣國論述，消耗掉國家絕大部分的資源與精力， 有血有肉的民生問題被擺到一旁。如今，執政黨忙著挖貪補漏，在野黨忙著反嗆拉扯，政治只是一味發洩憤怒、激盪仇恨，留給民眾的則是難以平癒的創傷。民主對 人民的意義，為何會窄化及矮化到此一地步？

當越來越多人必須關掉電視，避免被醜陋的政治景象擾亂心情，人們看完「我們三個」這部紀錄片， 可能會有喉嚨被卡住的感覺。羅茂盛思考未來的方式很特別，他獨自到海邊，藉著海風的清冷和海浪的沖刷，來整理自己的思緒。大浪不時打得他踉蹌跌坐，有時甚 至打掉他的義肢，羅茂盛必須奮起單腿，在千鈞一髮中向海浪奪回自己的義肢。我們不知道羅茂盛從險惡的海浪看到什麼出路，但那些掌握有偌大公權力和公資源的 人應該問問：自己給了這樣的人什麼機會？

台灣經濟今年下半年已進入負成長，明年將更惡化，隨著企業裁員和關廠潮，到年底將有五十萬人失去 工作。不必走到那一刻，我們已可預見未來的景象；到了那種時候，別說是身障的勞工，優秀的白領階級一樣將同遭其殃。屆時，羅茂盛的咖啡攤還撐不撐得下去？ 支持他的顧客還會不會繼續出現？這也許不是羅茂盛能回答的問題，卻是主政者該捫心自問的課題。

羅茂盛夜裡在家中自行烘焙咖啡豆，對各國咖 啡品類的脾性皆能娓娓道來；誰能想像，一位獨腿人如此用心經營他簡單的咖啡攤？就像他的獨子，須藉放大鏡將右眼緊貼在書頁上才能閱讀，也只是寄望不斷參加 考試取得就業機會。在經濟的退潮時分，羅茂盛一家的堅毅和無怨，除了提醒所有勞動者不要灰心喪志，也提醒朝野政黨應拋開務虛的政治硝煙，回到關注人民真實 生活的主軸來。

他們三個，在困境中不離不棄，共同維護一個家庭的生存和希望。而台灣，這個被族群和政治歧見撕裂的家庭，有沒有辦法克服大衰退及大蕭條，端視它有沒有擺脫內耗的能力。切記，政治的沉淪皆由於政客心中只有敵我，只有「我們」和「你們」，卻忘了還有老百姓「他們」。

Chen Shui-bian’s Hunger Strike and the DPP’s Support for Ah-Bian

Chen Shui-bian’s Hunger Strike and the DPP’s Support for Ah-Bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2008

The outcome of two activities remain uncertain. The first is Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike. The second is the DPP’s continued support for Ah-Bian.

These two activities have one thing in common. They have clearly lost momentum, but at the same time the actors can’t bring themselves to stop. The main reason is these two activities lack mainstream society support. Even among traditional Green Camp social organizations, the response has been tepid.

Last Saturday evening’s Yuanshan rally could be seen as an indicator of support for Ah-Bian. Some claimed buses brought 10,000 people to the site. But others estimate somewhat fewer than 10,000 showed up. During this rally Li Hong-hsi railed hysterically that “Three generations of judges and prosecutors deserve to meet with excruciating ends.” This tells us the Green Camp has degenerated into a mob on the rampage. Annette Lu wants Tsai Ing-wen to bear responsibility for deciding whether to break with Chen Shui-bian. This tells us that once again Chen Shui-bian is tearing the DPP apart. The evening’s events made it clear that mainstream society is unwilling to come to the aid of Chen Shui-bian. Event organizers failed to offer sound reasons for supporting Chen Shui-bian. So the question now is, does Chen Shui-bian intend to continue his hunger strike?

The Yuanshan rally confirmed it is no longer possible to work up any support for Chen Shui-bian on Taiwan. If the Green Camp persists, it will only lead to more ugly Li Hong-hsi type incidents, and more laughable Annette Lu type farces. The situation is clear. Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike lacks moral legitimacy. Unilateral assertions that “Chen Shui-bian is not guilty” convince no one. The Taipei Detention Center has already released a trial balloon, suggesting that, if necessary, Chen Shui-bian will force fed. Another rumor suggests that following Chen’s indictment, additional indictments will be made and he will remain in detention. The facts of Chen’s cass will be made public following each indictment. The legitimacy of supporting Ah-Bian has been undermined by his indictments. The question now is, does Chen Shui-bian intend to continue his hunger strike?

Let’s talk about the Democratic Progressive Party’s dilemma. On August 30 it refused to support Ah-Bian. At the Yuanshan evening rally it supported Ah-Bian. The Democratic Progressive Party is unable to break with Chen Shui-bian. Annette Lu, Yu Shi-kuen, Su Tseng-chang and local officials came out in support of Ah-Bian. The Presbyterian Church and other pro-independence forces are no longer persona no grata. Even Tsai Ing-wen ascended to the podium. She merely paid lip service to “Human Rights.” Such moves will have an impact only on Deep Greens. They will not persuade mainstream society. They may well increase antipathy among the Great Silent Majority. The more the Democratic Progressive Party resorts to the methods of Li Hong-hsi, Huang Ching-ling, and Cheng Hsing-chu in its support of Chen Shui-bian, the more mainstream society will conclude that the DPP is incorrigible and impervious to reason. When Deep Greens rail “Chairman Tsai is heartless,” the public concludes that Tsai Ing-wen will never be able to transform the Democratic Progressive Party. In short: Chen Shui-bian will not be saved. The Democratic Progressive Party will be destroyed. Tsai Ing-wen will be lost.

Chen Shui-bian’s indictment will be a watershed. Su Chi-feng and Chen Ming-wen have ended their hunger strikes. This is a blow to Chen Shui-bian. Chen Cheng-hui, Tsai Ming-Jer, Lee Chieh-mu have pleaded guilty. Koo Chung-liang has turned himself in. Chen Shui-bian has begun drinking electrolytes, dramatically diluting the political impact of his hunger strike. Chen Shui-bian is gambling. He hopes to remain on hunger strike right up to his indictment. He hopes his hunger strikes will gain his release on bail or an acquittal. But the Second Financial Reform and Secret Diplomacy scandals may keep Chen Shui-bian in custody. Chen Shui-bian faces a dilemma. He must end his hunger strike before he is indicted. If he is still in custody when he is indictment, he will have a hard time finding a pretext to end his hunger strike. The legitimacy of his hunger strike will also be weakened.

Once Chen Shui-bian is indicted, the DPP will find itself in a dilemma. If Chen Shui-bian is released, how will the Democratic Progressive Party deal with Chen Shui-bian’s rabble-rousing? If he remains in custody, should the Democratic Progressive Party demand his release?

Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike will not have the impact he anticipated. Nor will the Democratic Progressive Party gain any political mileage by supporting Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike. Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike lacks moral legitimacy. The Democratic Progressive is unable to offer any convincing reasons to support Ah-Bian. For decades, the public on Taiwan has unhesitatingly supported and encouraged genuine pioneers for social progress. If it is unable to receive a satisfactory response, then that is something that must be addressed through action.

Chen Shui-bian would do well to change his strategy. He should emulate Lee Ming-Jer Tsai and Li Chieh-mu. He should admit his guilt, turn over his ill-gotten gains, and beg society to forgive him for “committing acts not permitted under the law.” Chen Shui-bian will no longer need to remain on hunger strike. In which case the Democratic Progressive Party may paradoxically have more reason to support Chen.

陳水扁絕食與民進黨挺扁
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.26 04:46 am

現在，有兩件事不知該如何走下去。一、陳水扁絕食；二、民進黨挺扁。

這兩件事有一共通點，那就是顯然皆已失去爆發力及續航力，但是又都停不下來。主要的原因，是這兩件事皆未獲得主流社會的呼應與支持；即使在綠營的傳統社群中，這兩件事所獲的回響也相當微弱。

上 周六的圓山晚會，可視為挺扁的指標。據說遊覽車載來一萬人，但有人估計現場尚不到一萬人。這場晚會，李鴻禧狂罵「法官檢察官三代不得好死」，顯示綠營的論 述已至無理取鬧的地步；而呂秀蓮要蔡英文為「切不切割」負責，則再次暴露了民進黨已被陳水扁撕裂。這場晚會顯然未能召喚主流社會來聲援陳水扁，也未能在論 述上建立聲援陳水扁的正大理由，其立即發生的牽動效應是：陳水扁還要不要繼續絕食下去？

經過這場晚會，可以證實在台灣社會已無可能產生挺 扁的激情。綠營勉強為之，只會增添李鴻禧式的醜態與呂秀蓮式的鬧劇。事態十分明顯，陳水扁的絕食不具正當性，片面主張「阿扁無罪」亦不具正當性；而且，看 守所方面已放出必要時將對阿扁「固定保護」強行灌食的試探氣球，又傳出起訴後將另案繼續羈押陳水扁。扁案的真相將隨起訴而公開，挺扁的正當性亦將因起訴而 重挫。然則，陳水扁還要繼續絕食嗎？

接著可談民進黨挺扁的進退失據。從八三○不容挺扁，到圓山挺扁晚會；民進黨的主體已與陳水扁不能切 割，呂、游、蘇至地方山頭皆已出面挺扁，長老教會等獨派勢力亦早已不再避諱；連蔡英文也上了台，只是在口頭上守住「司法人權」的底線。不過，這類動作的影 響，似皆只在深綠極獨的範疇中激盪，非但未能感動或說服主流社會，反而可能徒增多數國人的惡感。民進黨愈用李鴻禧、黃慶林、鄭新助之類的方法來挺陳水扁， 主流社會就愈覺得民進黨的不可理喻及不可救藥。當深綠嗆聲「蔡主席無情」，社會大眾則認為對蔡英文改造民進黨已無指望。現在這個局面簡直是：救不了陳水 扁，毀了民進黨，又賠上了蔡英文。

接下來，陳水扁被起訴時，將是一個關鍵點。蘇治芬及陳明文停止絕食，對陳水扁的絕食是一衝擊；而陳鎮 慧、蔡銘哲、李界木的認罪、辜仲諒的投案，及陳水扁開始飲用電解水，更使他絕食的政治效應急遽下降。陳水扁現在想要一賭的也許是：絕食到起訴，然後以絕食 爭取交保或開釋。但是，就目前所見，因仍有二次金改及機密外交等大案，陳水扁屆時也可能繼續羈押。如此一來，將使陳水扁的絕食陷入進退兩難：他最好能在起 訴前停止絕食，否則，萬一起訴後仍被羈押，就更難找到停止絕食的下台階，但屆時繼續絕食的正當性卻將更趨薄弱。

同樣的，陳水扁被起訴後，亦將使民進黨陷入兩難之境。如果陳水扁被釋放，民進黨如何面對陳水扁的趴趴走？如果繼續收押，則民進黨要不要聲援主張開釋的活動？

情 勢發展至今，陳水扁的絕食發生不了他所想要達成的社會效應，民進黨挺扁也無法從陳水扁絕食獲得社會動能。因為，陳水扁絕食沒有正大的理由，民進黨挺扁也缺 乏一個足以說服國人的論述。幾十年來，台灣民眾不曾吝惜給真正推動社會進步的先驅以熱情的支持及鼓勵；但若未能獲得回響，那一定是在論述上或行動上尚有可 待商榷之處。

我們的建議是：陳水扁何妨改變戰略，學習蔡銘哲與李界木，承認犯行，繳出犯罪所得，請求社會原諒他「做了法律所不許可的事」；如此，陳水扁也就不必絕食，而民進黨也許反而有了挺扁的理由。

Chen Shui-bian’s Hunger Strike and the DPP’s Support for Ah-Bian

Chen Shui-bian’s Hunger Strike and the DPP’s Support for Ah-Bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 26, 2008

The outcome of two activities remain uncertain. The first is Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike. The second is the DPP’s continued support for Ah-Bian.

These two activities have one thing in common. They have clearly lost momentum, but at the same time the actors can’t bring themselves to stop. The main reason is these two activities lack mainstream society support. Even among traditional Green Camp social organizations, the response has been tepid.

Last Saturday evening’s Yuanshan rally could be seen as an indicator of support for Ah-Bian. Some claimed buses brought 10,000 people to the site. But others estimate somewhat fewer than 10,000 showed up. During this rally Li Hong-hsi railed hysterically that “Three generations of judges and prosecutors deserve to meet with excruciating ends.” This tells us the Green Camp has degenerated into a mob on the rampage. Annette Lu wants Tsai Ing-wen to bear responsibility for deciding whether to break with Chen Shui-bian. This tells us that once again Chen Shui-bian is tearing the DPP apart. The evening’s events made it clear that mainstream society is unwilling to come to the aid of Chen Shui-bian. Event organizers failed to offer sound reasons for supporting Chen Shui-bian. So the question now is, does Chen Shui-bian intend to continue his hunger strike?

The Yuanshan rally confirmed it is no longer possible to work up any support for Chen Shui-bian on Taiwan. If the Green Camp persists, it will only lead to more ugly Li Hong-hsi type incidents, and more laughable Annette Lu type farces. The situation is clear. Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike lacks moral legitimacy. Unilateral assertions that “Chen Shui-bian is not guilty” convince no one. The Taipei Detention Center has already released a trial balloon, suggesting that, if necessary, Chen Shui-bian will force fed. Another rumor suggests that following Chen’s indictment, additional indictments will be made and he will remain in detention. The facts of Chen’s cass will be made public following each indictment. The legitimacy of supporting Ah-Bian has been undermined by his indictments. The question now is, does Chen Shui-bian intend to continue his hunger strike?

Let’s talk about the Democratic Progressive Party’s dilemma. On August 30 it refused to support Ah-Bian. At the Yuanshan evening rally it supported Ah-Bian. The Democratic Progressive Party is unable to break with Chen Shui-bian. Annette Lu, Yu Shi-kuen, Su Tseng-chang and local officials came out in support of Ah-Bian. The Presbyterian Church and other pro-independence forces are no longer persona no grata. Even Tsai Ing-wen ascended to the podium. She merely paid lip service to “Human Rights.” Such moves will have an impact only on Deep Greens. They will not persuade mainstream society. They may well increase antipathy among the Great Silent Majority. The more the Democratic Progressive Party resorts to the methods of Li Hong-hsi, Huang Ching-ling, and Cheng Hsing-chu in its support of Chen Shui-bian, the more mainstream society will conclude that the DPP is incorrigible and impervious to reason. When Deep Greens rail “Chairman Tsai is heartless,” the public concludes that Tsai Ing-wen will never be able to transform the Democratic Progressive Party. In short: Chen Shui-bian will not be saved. The Democratic Progressive Party will be destroyed. Tsai Ing-wen will be lost.

Chen Shui-bian’s indictment will be a watershed. Su Chi-feng and Chen Ming-wen have ended their hunger strikes. This is a blow to Chen Shui-bian. Chen Cheng-hui, Tsai Ming-Jer, Lee Chieh-mu have pleaded guilty. Koo Chung-liang has turned himself in. Chen Shui-bian has begun drinking electrolytes, dramatically diluting the political impact of his hunger strike. Chen Shui-bian is gambling. He hopes to remain on hunger strike right up to his indictment. He hopes his hunger strikes will gain his release on bail or an acquittal. But the Second Financial Reform and Secret Diplomacy scandals may keep Chen Shui-bian in custody. Chen Shui-bian faces a dilemma. He must end his hunger strike before he is indicted. If he is still in custody when he is indictment, he will have a hard time finding a pretext to end his hunger strike. The legitimacy of his hunger strike will also be weakened.

Once Chen Shui-bian is indicted, the DPP will find itself in a dilemma. If Chen Shui-bian is released, how will the Democratic Progressive Party deal with Chen Shui-bian’s rabble-rousing? If he remains in custody, should the Democratic Progressive Party demand his release?

Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike will not have the impact he anticipated. Nor will the Democratic Progressive Party gain any political mileage by supporting Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike. Chen Shui-bian’s hunger strike lacks moral legitimacy. The Democratic Progressive is unable to offer any convincing reasons to support Ah-Bian. For decades, the public on Taiwan has unhesitatingly supported and encouraged genuine pioneers for social progress. If it is unable to receive a satisfactory response, then that is something that must be addressed through action.

Chen Shui-bian would do well to change his strategy. He should emulate Lee Ming-Jer Tsai and Li Chieh-mu. He should admit his guilt, turn over his ill-gotten gains, and beg society to forgive him for “committing acts not permitted under the law.” Chen Shui-bian will no longer need to remain on hunger strike. In which case the Democratic Progressive Party may paradoxically have more reason to support Chen.

陳水扁絕食與民進黨挺扁
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.26 04:46 am

現在，有兩件事不知該如何走下去。一、陳水扁絕食；二、民進黨挺扁。

這兩件事有一共通點，那就是顯然皆已失去爆發力及續航力，但是又都停不下來。主要的原因，是這兩件事皆未獲得主流社會的呼應與支持；即使在綠營的傳統社群中，這兩件事所獲的回響也相當微弱。

上 周六的圓山晚會，可視為挺扁的指標。據說遊覽車載來一萬人，但有人估計現場尚不到一萬人。這場晚會，李鴻禧狂罵「法官檢察官三代不得好死」，顯示綠營的論 述已至無理取鬧的地步；而呂秀蓮要蔡英文為「切不切割」負責，則再次暴露了民進黨已被陳水扁撕裂。這場晚會顯然未能召喚主流社會來聲援陳水扁，也未能在論 述上建立聲援陳水扁的正大理由，其立即發生的牽動效應是：陳水扁還要不要繼續絕食下去？

經過這場晚會，可以證實在台灣社會已無可能產生挺 扁的激情。綠營勉強為之，只會增添李鴻禧式的醜態與呂秀蓮式的鬧劇。事態十分明顯，陳水扁的絕食不具正當性，片面主張「阿扁無罪」亦不具正當性；而且，看 守所方面已放出必要時將對阿扁「固定保護」強行灌食的試探氣球，又傳出起訴後將另案繼續羈押陳水扁。扁案的真相將隨起訴而公開，挺扁的正當性亦將因起訴而 重挫。然則，陳水扁還要繼續絕食嗎？

接著可談民進黨挺扁的進退失據。從八三○不容挺扁，到圓山挺扁晚會；民進黨的主體已與陳水扁不能切 割，呂、游、蘇至地方山頭皆已出面挺扁，長老教會等獨派勢力亦早已不再避諱；連蔡英文也上了台，只是在口頭上守住「司法人權」的底線。不過，這類動作的影 響，似皆只在深綠極獨的範疇中激盪，非但未能感動或說服主流社會，反而可能徒增多數國人的惡感。民進黨愈用李鴻禧、黃慶林、鄭新助之類的方法來挺陳水扁， 主流社會就愈覺得民進黨的不可理喻及不可救藥。當深綠嗆聲「蔡主席無情」，社會大眾則認為對蔡英文改造民進黨已無指望。現在這個局面簡直是：救不了陳水 扁，毀了民進黨，又賠上了蔡英文。

接下來，陳水扁被起訴時，將是一個關鍵點。蘇治芬及陳明文停止絕食，對陳水扁的絕食是一衝擊；而陳鎮 慧、蔡銘哲、李界木的認罪、辜仲諒的投案，及陳水扁開始飲用電解水，更使他絕食的政治效應急遽下降。陳水扁現在想要一賭的也許是：絕食到起訴，然後以絕食 爭取交保或開釋。但是，就目前所見，因仍有二次金改及機密外交等大案，陳水扁屆時也可能繼續羈押。如此一來，將使陳水扁的絕食陷入進退兩難：他最好能在起 訴前停止絕食，否則，萬一起訴後仍被羈押，就更難找到停止絕食的下台階，但屆時繼續絕食的正當性卻將更趨薄弱。

同樣的，陳水扁被起訴後，亦將使民進黨陷入兩難之境。如果陳水扁被釋放，民進黨如何面對陳水扁的趴趴走？如果繼續收押，則民進黨要不要聲援主張開釋的活動？

情 勢發展至今，陳水扁的絕食發生不了他所想要達成的社會效應，民進黨挺扁也無法從陳水扁絕食獲得社會動能。因為，陳水扁絕食沒有正大的理由，民進黨挺扁也缺 乏一個足以說服國人的論述。幾十年來，台灣民眾不曾吝惜給真正推動社會進步的先驅以熱情的支持及鼓勵；但若未能獲得回響，那一定是在論述上或行動上尚有可 待商榷之處。

我們的建議是：陳水扁何妨改變戰略，學習蔡銘哲與李界木，承認犯行，繳出犯罪所得，請求社會原諒他「做了法律所不許可的事」；如此，陳水扁也就不必絕食，而民進黨也許反而有了挺扁的理由。

Increased Public Works: A Magic Pill to Save the Economy

Increased Public Works: A Magic Pill to Save the Economy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2008

The economic situation is critical. The government continues writing new prescriptions for the nation’s economic ills. Each prescription has its own effect. The government is issuing 83.5 billion NT in consumer vouchers. This can be likened to a shot of adrenalin. Meanwhile, a four year 420 billion NT increase in public works can be likened to a magic pill. Therefore the distinction between the two policy prescriptions is merely procedural and technical, and one of chronological priority. There is no room for hesitation regarding increased public works. The ruling and opposition parties must realize this.

Yesterday the Executive Yuan held an interim session. It passed special regulations relating to consumer vouchers and increased public works. It considered the urgency of issuing consumer vouchers. Two measures to stimulate domestic demand were not included in the package. This avoided linkage that might have delayed its passage. The Executive Yuan’s change of heart may have been a compromise due to political considerations. But it was necessary. After all, consumer vouchers are a relatively simple policy prescription. They are a one-time proposition. They are immediate, comprehensive, socially acceptable, and have few lasting after-effects. By contrast, increased public works require long term commitment and increased responsibility. They must be implemented by a variety of government agencies. The allocation of public resources must be subject to close supervision. They must be discussed and evaluated. They should not and may not be rushed.

Given the current economic situation, increasing public works must not be delayed. This can be viewed on three levels. First, the magnitude of the global financial crisis has exceeded expectations. Traditional countermeasures against the business cycle have not been able to cope. The accepted solution is a cocktail of currency and fiscal policies. But each policy has its limitations. Any such cocktail must be specially mixed to suit each nation’s circumstances. Only then can the impact of each policy be tracked, followed up, and multiplied. The government must jumpstart the economy.

Take consumer vouchers. The spending of 83.5 billion NT can awaken demand, increase production, reduce unemployment, and slow economic decline. But once it’s spent, it’s gone. The government cannot continually issue consumer vouchers. Therefore, they must be followed by increased public works and other measures. Otherwise, the time bought with consumer vouchers will be wasted. Therefore the two must go hand in hand. This is why the Executive Yuan wanted to link the two in the first place.

Secondly, public works don’t merely jumpstart the economy. Public works will be a major contributor to economic growth next year. According to the Directorate General of Budget Office’s latest forecast, the private sector has flamed out. A quarter of next year’s 2.12% growth will come from increased government investment, as much as 0.55%. This means that if the government delays investment, or reduces investment, the economic growth rate next year will have difficulty remaining above 2%. Economic recovery will also be delayed. Therefore as far the government is concerned, the DGBAS forecast is a mission that must be accomplished. To accomplish this goal, the government must increase investment to over 20%. Public works must proceed both rapidly and in full force.

Thirdly, we must return to the root of public investment. The real value of bridge construction and road construction is to promote production and improve living standards. Therefore the benefits of economic growth brought about by public works is merely incidental. Public works are one of the government’s tools to revitalize the economy. Attention is often focused on the expansion of demand, neglecting its original purpose. Rebuilding Taiwan’s public infrastructure stores up energy for a future recovery. Improving the living environment promotes increased consumption. An increase in consumption can become a source of economic growth. Therefore investment in public works have regenerative power, and serves many purposes.

The economic situation has deteriorated rapidly, highlighting the intensity of the global recession. This must not be overlooked. Just as businesses must weather the storm, we too must tough it out. Only then can we make a comeback. We must not second guess ourselves. The opposition party, as it provides checks on the ruling administration, must not resort to politically-motivated obstructionism. The consumer vouchers are an adrenalin shot. Follow through by approving increased public works, as soon as possible. Only such a policy will be effective.

We must remind the Executive Yuan of lessons learned from hard experience. Government investment has made a positive contribution to the economy in only two years out of the past ten. An economic recession began in the third quarter of this year. Increasing local infrastructure to expand domestic demand was not as effective as anticipated. Promoting public investment is not merely for the sake of the budget. The key is execution. The Executive Yuan must engage in self-examination. It must explain its policies. Only then can it persuade the public.

擴大公共投資是救經濟的續命丸
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.25 02:18 am

經 濟情勢危急，救經濟藥方不斷，但各有其效；一次發放八百卅五億元的全民消費券，如果是強心針；四年動支四千二百億元的擴大公共建設，就是讓經濟再起的續命 丸。所以，兩大政策的特別條例切割，僅是流程處理的技術問題，絕非輕重緩急的選擇，擴大公共投資沒有任何遲疑的空間，朝野都應有此認知。

行 政院昨天舉行臨時院會，通過消費券特別條例及擴大公共建設特別條例；考量消費券發放的急迫時效性，兩項擴大內需措施沒有包裹立法，以免彼此牽制，影響立法 時程。行政院態度上的轉變，儘管是出於政治考量的適度妥協，但卻是必要的；畢竟，消費券的政策內涵較為簡單，其一次性、立即性、全民執行的特色，令其社會 接受度高，後遺症也較少。相對的，擴大公共建設的推動，具有持續性、擴散性，並因由政府部門執行，須受公共資源分配的監督，以致需有一定的評估及討論過 程，不應也不能急就章。

可是，以現今的經濟情勢，擴大公共建設也絕對是慢不得的，這可以分成三個層次來說明。一是全球實體經濟受金融海嘯 衝擊的速度、深度都超乎預期，傳統的反景氣循環對策已難以應對，組合多項貨幣、財政政策工具的「雞尾酒療法」則成為主流。但是，每項工具均有其限制，必須 依各國狀況安排推動的順序，讓各個政策的效益得以展現、接續，進而相乘，使政府提振景氣的點點星火得以燎原。

就以消費券為例，八百卅五億 元花下去，可以喚醒一點需求、增加一點生產、減少一點失業、延緩景氣惡化之勢，但花完就沒有了，政府也不可能一直發；所以，必須要有擴大公共投資等其他措 施接上去，否則消費券爭取到的一點救命時間就白費了。因此，兩者應是相輔相成，這也是行政院一開始想要綁在一起做的主因。

第二個層次是， 公共投資已不只是點火景氣的角色，還將成為明年經濟成長的主角之一。根據行政院主計處的最新經濟預測，由於民間部門熄火，明年百分之二點一二的經濟成長率 中，有四分之一是來自政府投資的大幅成長，達零點五五個百分點；這意謂，如果政府投資延遲、縮水，明年經濟成長率就會連「保二」都有困難，景氣復甦也將延 後。因此，主計處這項預測對政府而言，已是「使命必達」的目標；而要達成此一目標，政府投資就須增加二成以上，此時推動擴大公共建設方案不只慢不得，還要 卯足全力。

第三個層次是回到公共投資的初衷。基本上，造橋、鋪路等公共投資的真正價值是在促進生產及改善生活，因建設投入所帶來的經濟成 長，則僅是附帶效益；不過，由於公共投資經常成為政府振興景氣的政策工具，以致一般只關注它的擴大需求效果，反而忽略了其原始意義。故而此時建設台灣的公 共環境，也是在蓄積今後迎接景氣回升的實力；其對生活環境的改善，更有助於促進消費，而消費的增加又成為經濟成長的來源。因此，公共投資是具有再生循環性 的，此時做建設更是一舉多得。

近期各項經濟指標急速惡化，凸顯出這一波全球經濟大衰退來勢洶洶，而且是不可輕忽，就像企業度年關一般，挺 過這一關，才有再起之機。因此，現在沒有瞻前顧後的條件，也期望在野黨的監督勿流於政治意氣之爭；既然給了消費券這劑強心針，就不要半途而廢，也要儘速核 定擴大公共建設這顆續命丸，如此政策效益才能一貫。

不過，也要提醒行政院，以經驗值來看，過去十年中政府投資只有兩年是正貢獻，而今年第三季經濟會出現衰退，也與「加強地方建設擴大內需方案」執行率不如預期有關，顯示公共投資的推動不只是爭取預算的問題，執行力更是關鍵。行政院必須對此有所檢討、說明，政策才更有說服力。

Increased Public Works: A Magic Pill to Save the Economy

Increased Public Works: A Magic Pill to Save the Economy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 25, 2008

The economic situation is critical. The government continues writing new prescriptions for the nation’s economic ills. Each prescription has its own effect. The government is issuing 83.5 billion NT in consumer vouchers. This can be likened to a shot of adrenalin. Meanwhile, a four year 420 billion NT increase in public works can be likened to a magic pill. Therefore the distinction between the two policy prescriptions is merely procedural and technical, and one of chronological priority. There is no room for hesitation regarding increased public works. The ruling and opposition parties must realize this.

Yesterday the Executive Yuan held an interim session. It passed special regulations relating to consumer vouchers and increased public works. It considered the urgency of issuing consumer vouchers. Two measures to stimulate domestic demand were not included in the package. This avoided linkage that might have delayed its passage. The Executive Yuan’s change of heart may have been a compromise due to political considerations. But it was necessary. After all, consumer vouchers are a relatively simple policy prescription. They are a one-time proposition. They are immediate, comprehensive, socially acceptable, and have few lasting after-effects. By contrast, increased public works require long term commitment and increased responsibility. They must be implemented by a variety of government agencies. The allocation of public resources must be subject to close supervision. They must be discussed and evaluated. They should not and may not be rushed.

Given the current economic situation, increasing public works must not be delayed. This can be viewed on three levels. First, the magnitude of the global financial crisis has exceeded expectations. Traditional countermeasures against the business cycle have not been able to cope. The accepted solution is a cocktail of currency and fiscal policies. But each policy has its limitations. Any such cocktail must be specially mixed to suit each nation’s circumstances. Only then can the impact of each policy be tracked, followed up, and multiplied. The government must jumpstart the economy.

Take consumer vouchers. The spending of 83.5 billion NT can awaken demand, increase production, reduce unemployment, and slow economic decline. But once it’s spent, it’s gone. The government cannot continually issue consumer vouchers. Therefore, they must be followed by increased public works and other measures. Otherwise, the time bought with consumer vouchers will be wasted. Therefore the two must go hand in hand. This is why the Executive Yuan wanted to link the two in the first place.

Secondly, public works don’t merely jumpstart the economy. Public works will be a major contributor to economic growth next year. According to the Directorate General of Budget Office’s latest forecast, the private sector has flamed out. A quarter of next year’s 2.12% growth will come from increased government investment, as much as 0.55%. This means that if the government delays investment, or reduces investment, the economic growth rate next year will have difficulty remaining above 2%. Economic recovery will also be delayed. Therefore as far the government is concerned, the DGBAS forecast is a mission that must be accomplished. To accomplish this goal, the government must increase investment to over 20%. Public works must proceed both rapidly and in full force.

Thirdly, we must return to the root of public investment. The real value of bridge construction and road construction is to promote production and improve living standards. Therefore the benefits of economic growth brought about by public works is merely incidental. Public works are one of the government’s tools to revitalize the economy. Attention is often focused on the expansion of demand, neglecting its original purpose. Rebuilding Taiwan’s public infrastructure stores up energy for a future recovery. Improving the living environment promotes increased consumption. An increase in consumption can become a source of economic growth. Therefore investment in public works have regenerative power, and serves many purposes.

The economic situation has deteriorated rapidly, highlighting the intensity of the global recession. This must not be overlooked. Just as businesses must weather the storm, we too must tough it out. Only then can we make a comeback. We must not second guess ourselves. The opposition party, as it provides checks on the ruling administration, must not resort to politically-motivated obstructionism. The consumer vouchers are an adrenalin shot. Follow through by approving increased public works, as soon as possible. Only such a policy will be effective.

We must remind the Executive Yuan of lessons learned from hard experience. Government investment has made a positive contribution to the economy in only two years out of the past ten. An economic recession began in the third quarter of this year. Increasing local infrastructure to expand domestic demand was not as effective as anticipated. Promoting public investment is not merely for the sake of the budget. The key is execution. The Executive Yuan must engage in self-examination. It must explain its policies. Only then can it persuade the public.

擴大公共投資是救經濟的續命丸
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.11.25 02:18 am

經 濟情勢危急，救經濟藥方不斷，但各有其效；一次發放八百卅五億元的全民消費券，如果是強心針；四年動支四千二百億元的擴大公共建設，就是讓經濟再起的續命 丸。所以，兩大政策的特別條例切割，僅是流程處理的技術問題，絕非輕重緩急的選擇，擴大公共投資沒有任何遲疑的空間，朝野都應有此認知。

行 政院昨天舉行臨時院會，通過消費券特別條例及擴大公共建設特別條例；考量消費券發放的急迫時效性，兩項擴大內需措施沒有包裹立法，以免彼此牽制，影響立法 時程。行政院態度上的轉變，儘管是出於政治考量的適度妥協，但卻是必要的；畢竟，消費券的政策內涵較為簡單，其一次性、立即性、全民執行的特色，令其社會 接受度高，後遺症也較少。相對的，擴大公共建設的推動，具有持續性、擴散性，並因由政府部門執行，須受公共資源分配的監督，以致需有一定的評估及討論過 程，不應也不能急就章。

可是，以現今的經濟情勢，擴大公共建設也絕對是慢不得的，這可以分成三個層次來說明。一是全球實體經濟受金融海嘯 衝擊的速度、深度都超乎預期，傳統的反景氣循環對策已難以應對，組合多項貨幣、財政政策工具的「雞尾酒療法」則成為主流。但是，每項工具均有其限制，必須 依各國狀況安排推動的順序，讓各個政策的效益得以展現、接續，進而相乘，使政府提振景氣的點點星火得以燎原。

就以消費券為例，八百卅五億 元花下去，可以喚醒一點需求、增加一點生產、減少一點失業、延緩景氣惡化之勢，但花完就沒有了，政府也不可能一直發；所以，必須要有擴大公共投資等其他措 施接上去，否則消費券爭取到的一點救命時間就白費了。因此，兩者應是相輔相成，這也是行政院一開始想要綁在一起做的主因。

第二個層次是， 公共投資已不只是點火景氣的角色，還將成為明年經濟成長的主角之一。根據行政院主計處的最新經濟預測，由於民間部門熄火，明年百分之二點一二的經濟成長率 中，有四分之一是來自政府投資的大幅成長，達零點五五個百分點；這意謂，如果政府投資延遲、縮水，明年經濟成長率就會連「保二」都有困難，景氣復甦也將延 後。因此，主計處這項預測對政府而言，已是「使命必達」的目標；而要達成此一目標，政府投資就須增加二成以上，此時推動擴大公共建設方案不只慢不得，還要 卯足全力。

第三個層次是回到公共投資的初衷。基本上，造橋、鋪路等公共投資的真正價值是在促進生產及改善生活，因建設投入所帶來的經濟成 長，則僅是附帶效益；不過，由於公共投資經常成為政府振興景氣的政策工具，以致一般只關注它的擴大需求效果，反而忽略了其原始意義。故而此時建設台灣的公 共環境，也是在蓄積今後迎接景氣回升的實力；其對生活環境的改善，更有助於促進消費，而消費的增加又成為經濟成長的來源。因此，公共投資是具有再生循環性 的，此時做建設更是一舉多得。

近期各項經濟指標急速惡化，凸顯出這一波全球經濟大衰退來勢洶洶，而且是不可輕忽，就像企業度年關一般，挺 過這一關，才有再起之機。因此，現在沒有瞻前顧後的條件，也期望在野黨的監督勿流於政治意氣之爭；既然給了消費券這劑強心針，就不要半途而廢，也要儘速核 定擴大公共建設這顆續命丸，如此政策效益才能一貫。

不過，也要提醒行政院，以經驗值來看，過去十年中政府投資只有兩年是正貢獻，而今年第三季經濟會出現衰退，也與「加強地方建設擴大內需方案」執行率不如預期有關，顯示公共投資的推動不只是爭取預算的問題，執行力更是關鍵。行政院必須對此有所檢討、說明，政策才更有說服力。

The First to Unburden Itself of the Past Will Be the Winner

The First to Unburden Itself of the Past Will Be the Winner
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2008

Last weekend, both the ruling and opposition parties were busy with party affairs. The KMT held its 17th Extraordinary National Congress. It added five Vice Chairmen, increasing the number of KMT Vice Chairmen to a record eight. The Democratic Progressive Party, meanwhile, gathered at the “Taiwan is Our Country” evening rally, organized by a nativist oriented pressure group. Nominally the rally was about sovereignty and human rights. In fact it was merely another “Support Chen Rally.” These two political events dramatically illustrate the two parties’ problems.

The two parties staged these events for the public benefit. But they merely highlighted the two parties’ most serious problems, namely, that they are primarily interested in pacifying party insiders. If they can’t pacify members of their own party, nothing else matters. No matter how strong the party’s image or platform might be, if the party is subject to internal strife, if it trips over its own feet, it won’t be able to wage a winning campaign at election time. If one cannot win elections, everything else is beside the point. This is a fate neither the ruling nor opposition party can escape.

Consider the KMT. There they sat, eight Vice Chairmen, all in a row. We have never seen such an array in the history of the KMT, or for that matter, in the history of political parties the world over. The Chairman and the Vice Chairmen are numerous enough to hold a “Meeting of Vice Chairmen.” The arrangement highlighted neither the party’s power succession, nor any commitment to generational change. As for reform? Forget about it. Euphemistically, such an arrangement might be referred to as “promoting unity.” Less euphemistically, it is mere patronage. Still less euphemistically, one might say that “The KMT will always be the KMT.” Considerations of power will always trump public perception. No wonder most peoples’ mental stereotypes about the KMT can never be overcome.

Now consider the DPP. For the forseeable future, it is fated to be linked to Chen Shui-bian. Chairman Tsai Ing-wen understands this better than anyone else. If the Democratic Progressive Party hopes to reverse its fortunes, its first order of business must be to disassociate itself from Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian understands this equally well. If he wants to reverse his fortunes, his first order of business must be to cling to the Democratic Progressive Party for dear life. These two totally contradictory forces collided during the evening rally. The crowd was filled with masses who supported Chen. After a few pro forma expressions of support for human rights, Tsai Ing-wen vanished. The result was predictable. The more Tsai Ing-wen evades the need to disassociate the DPP from Ah-Bian, the firmer the support for Ah-Bian. This augurs poorly for the DPP’s hope of an “era without Chen Shui-bian.”

Both the ruling and opposition parties have their crosses to bear. Put simply, whichever political party remains hobbled by its past will be the loser.

The KMT faces old problems. Even after being in the opposition for eight years, its decadent  political culture remains. Its gerontocracy, its penchant for infighting and other negative traits seem to follow it around like a shadow. The arrangement of its eight Vice Chairmen has taken Parkinson’s Law to the limit. Its actual purpose had nothing to do with leadership. Its real purpose was to prevent friction among rivals. The result was predictable. The power succession has been postponed indefinitely. The sundry factions will continue to consolidate their power. Such an arrangement will not help the Ma administration improve its performance. Even increasing the number of Vice Chairmen to 16 won’t make any difference.

The Democratic Progressive Party also has no choice. Chen Shui-bian after all, is its former leader. Over the past eight years, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have been joined at the hip. Chen Shui-bian enabled the Democratic Progressive Party to become the ruling party. Now that Chen Shui-bian is mired in corruption and depravity, the leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party, no matter which faction, no matter which generation, are unable to disown him. Logically speaking, who doesn’t know the Chen family is guilty of corruption and money-laundering? Emotionally speaking, who has the courage to make a clean break? Wait and see. Wait for prosecutors to finish their preliminary investigation and begin actual prosecution. Ah-Bian is about to submit bail, pending trial. He is a caged tiger. The trial will take one and a half to three years. Perhaps longer. Ah-Bian can be counted on to stir the pot, to use of delaying tactics, to  foment political unrest to obstruct justice. Tsai Ing-wen will be lucky not to be marginalized. On the other hand, further revelations of revolting Green Camp corruption will come to light during the trial. Since the Democratic Progressive Party has missed its golden opportunity to make a clean break with Ah-Bian, it will have to accept the blame.

Two thousand and eight is rapidly drawing to a close. Neither the ruling nor opposition parties have had an easy time. The KMT has regained the power it lost for eight years. But regaining power has not immediately improved its lot. Its approval ratings have plummeted so preciptously, even its leadership is embarrassed. An Extraordinary National Congress has added five more Vice Chairmen. Otherwise, it is business as usual. The DPP has not recovered from the shock of losing political power. Should it break with Ah-Bian? The party remains in a dilemma. The issue will dog the party for years to come. In short, whichever party first unburdens itself of the past will be the winner.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.11.24
誰能率先甩掉包袱 誰就是贏家
中時社論

上個周末，朝野兩黨都在忙碌中度過。國民黨舉行了第十七次全代會臨時會，破紀錄地增加了五名副主席，加總起來國民黨現在已經擁有八名副主席了。民進黨則是 齊聚在本土社團所舉辦的「台灣咱的國家」晚會中，這場聚會名義上是要談主權講人權的，實質上依舊是場「挺扁大會」。這兩場政治活動，相當生動地點出了兩個 黨的各自問題。

儘管這兩場戲碼都有演給全國民眾看的寓意，但無例外都突出了兩黨當下所必須面對的最重要課題：「安內」為上。擺不平內部，其他談再多其實都沒用。形象、政 綱再強的政黨，內部若是掣肘不斷、自亂陣腳，碰到選舉什麼戰力都發揮不出來，選敗了講什麼都是白搭。這或許是朝野兩黨都擺脫不了的宿命。

先看國民黨。一字排開八位副主席，別說國民黨自己的黨史，就算翻閱世界政黨史，都看不到這種陣仗，等於說光是主席加全部副主席就可以開個「副主席團會議」 了，整個安排既未突出「接班梯隊」的態勢，亦未呈現出「世代交替」的風格，至於「清新改革」就更不必提了。這種安排講好聽是「團結」，講難聽就是統統有獎 的權力分贓。說再白一些，國民黨終究就是國民黨，權力安排的考量永遠大過社會觀感，也難怪國民黨在多數民眾眼中的刻板印象永遠都去除不了。

至於民進黨，看來在未來相當長的一段時間裡，註定是要與陳水扁綁在一起了。蔡英文主席其實比誰都清楚，民進黨未來要逆勢再起，第一要務就是要與陳水扁切 割；同樣的陳水扁自己也心知肚明，他未來要在逆境中突圍，第一要務就是緊抱民進黨不放。當兩種完全矛盾的目標撞在一起，就像我們在晚會中所看到的畫面，滿 場群眾瀰漫著挺扁氛圍，蔡英文一人高倡人權後「快閃」，結果當然可想而知，蔡英文愈是迂迴切割，群眾挺扁聲浪愈是更堅實。這預示民進黨要邁入一個「沒有陳 水扁」時代，恐怕根本做不到！

換言之，朝野兩黨都有各自揮不掉的包袱，展望未來的歲月，用比較殘酷的話說，哪個政黨身上的包袱能發揮更大影響力，哪個政黨註定就是下一階段政黨角逐的輸家。

國民黨所面臨的全是老問題。都已經在野了八年，昔日近乎腐朽的政治文化還是未見褪盡，論字排輩、內鬥內行…等等令人詬病的舊習性，永遠都是如影隨行；八名 副主席的安排，已經將管理學上的「帕金森定律」發揮到極致，它的實質功能與領導副手完全無關，僅只是為了避免各方人馬的無端反彈。結果當然可想而知，它將 權力接班的時程無限期延後，也提供了各路人馬更多蓄積能量的機會。只不過，如果這般複雜的安排，在未來不能幫助馬政府將政績提振起來，就算再擴張成十六個 人來當副主席，也不具有任何意義。

民進黨同樣也沒得選擇。陳水扁畢竟是昔日的領袖，過去八年的歲月，陳水扁與民進黨等於就是連體嬰，民進黨因為陳水扁而得享執政榮耀，如今卻也因陳水扁涉及 貪腐而墮落蒙塵，整個民進黨的領導精英，不論派系、世代，誰能與陳水扁切割得一清二楚？理性的事實認定上，扁家究竟有無貪汙洗錢，誰心中會沒數？但在感性 情誼上，誰又能完全一刀切呢？等著看吧，待檢方偵查終結邁入起訴階段後，扁也隨即要交保候審了，屆時勢必又是如同猛虎出柙，隨著審判時程，未來少則一年半 載，多則兩三年甚至更長，扁肯定翻炒議題，拉長戰線，以政治對抗司法，小英能不被邊緣化就不錯了。另一方面，審判過程中也勢必進一步披露更多綠營不堪聞問 的貪腐內幕，民進黨既然已經錯過了切割的黃金時間，也只能概括承受了。

二○○八快接近尾聲了，這一年朝野兩黨都過得並不愉快，國民黨贏得了喪失八年的政權，但並未帶來「馬上好」，聲望跌停到令他們自己都覺難堪，一場使勁演出 的臨全會，除了多了五位副主席，並未讓人「一新耳目」；而民進黨則是到現在都還未從喪失政權的陰影中回神過來，與扁要切不切的兩難，還會在未來的歲月中持 續折磨這個政黨。結論是，哪個政黨能率先甩掉包袱，就會是下階段的贏家。

The First to Unburden Itself of the Past Will Be the Winner

The First to Unburden Itself of the Past Will Be the Winner
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 24, 2008

Last weekend, both the ruling and opposition parties were busy with party affairs. The KMT held its 17th Extraordinary National Congress. It added five Vice Chairmen, increasing the number of KMT Vice Chairmen to a record eight. The Democratic Progressive Party, meanwhile, gathered at the “Taiwan is Our Country” evening rally, organized by a nativist oriented pressure group. Nominally the rally was about sovereignty and human rights. In fact it was merely another “Support Chen Rally.” These two political events dramatically illustrate the two parties’ problems.

The two parties staged these events for the public benefit. But they merely highlighted the two parties’ most serious problems, namely, that they are primarily interested in pacifying party insiders. If they can’t pacify members of their own party, nothing else matters. No matter how strong the party’s image or platform might be, if the party is subject to internal strife, if it trips over its own feet, it won’t be able to wage a winning campaign at election time. If one cannot win elections, everything else is beside the point. This is a fate neither the ruling nor opposition party can escape.

Consider the KMT. There they sat, eight Vice Chairmen, all in a row. We have never seen such an array in the history of the KMT, or for that matter, in the history of political parties the world over. The Chairman and the Vice Chairmen are numerous enough to hold a “Meeting of Vice Chairmen.” The arrangement highlighted neither the party’s power succession, nor any commitment to generational change. As for reform? Forget about it. Euphemistically, such an arrangement might be referred to as “promoting unity.” Less euphemistically, it is mere patronage. Still less euphemistically, one might say that “The KMT will always be the KMT.” Considerations of power will always trump public perception. No wonder most peoples’ mental stereotypes about the KMT can never be overcome.

Now consider the DPP. For the forseeable future, it is fated to be linked to Chen Shui-bian. Chairman Tsai Ing-wen understands this better than anyone else. If the Democratic Progressive Party hopes to reverse its fortunes, its first order of business must be to disassociate itself from Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian understands this equally well. If he wants to reverse his fortunes, his first order of business must be to cling to the Democratic Progressive Party for dear life. These two totally contradictory forces collided during the evening rally. The crowd was filled with masses who supported Chen. After a few pro forma expressions of support for human rights, Tsai Ing-wen vanished. The result was predictable. The more Tsai Ing-wen evades the need to disassociate the DPP from Ah-Bian, the firmer the support for Ah-Bian. This augurs poorly for the DPP’s hope of an “era without Chen Shui-bian.”

Both the ruling and opposition parties have their crosses to bear. Put simply, whichever political party remains hobbled by its past will be the loser.

The KMT faces old problems. Even after being in the opposition for eight years, its decadent  political culture remains. Its gerontocracy, its penchant for infighting and other negative traits seem to follow it around like a shadow. The arrangement of its eight Vice Chairmen has taken Parkinson’s Law to the limit. Its actual purpose had nothing to do with leadership. Its real purpose was to prevent friction among rivals. The result was predictable. The power succession has been postponed indefinitely. The sundry factions will continue to consolidate their power. Such an arrangement will not help the Ma administration improve its performance. Even increasing the number of Vice Chairmen to 16 won’t make any difference.

The Democratic Progressive Party also has no choice. Chen Shui-bian after all, is its former leader. Over the past eight years, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP have been joined at the hip. Chen Shui-bian enabled the Democratic Progressive Party to become the ruling party. Now that Chen Shui-bian is mired in corruption and depravity, the leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party, no matter which faction, no matter which generation, are unable to disown him. Logically speaking, who doesn’t know the Chen family is guilty of corruption and money-laundering? Emotionally speaking, who has the courage to make a clean break? Wait and see. Wait for prosecutors to finish their preliminary investigation and begin actual prosecution. Ah-Bian is about to submit bail, pending trial. He is a caged tiger. The trial will take one and a half to three years. Perhaps longer. Ah-Bian can be counted on to stir the pot, to use of delaying tactics, to  foment political unrest to obstruct justice. Tsai Ing-wen will be lucky not to be marginalized. On the other hand, further revelations of revolting Green Camp corruption will come to light during the trial. Since the Democratic Progressive Party has missed its golden opportunity to make a clean break with Ah-Bian, it will have to accept the blame.

Two thousand and eight is rapidly drawing to a close. Neither the ruling nor opposition parties have had an easy time. The KMT has regained the power it lost for eight years. But regaining power has not immediately improved its lot. Its approval ratings have plummeted so preciptously, even its leadership is embarrassed. An Extraordinary National Congress has added five more Vice Chairmen. Otherwise, it is business as usual. The DPP has not recovered from the shock of losing political power. Should it break with Ah-Bian? The party remains in a dilemma. The issue will dog the party for years to come. In short, whichever party first unburdens itself of the past will be the winner.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.11.24
誰能率先甩掉包袱 誰就是贏家
中時社論

上個周末，朝野兩黨都在忙碌中度過。國民黨舉行了第十七次全代會臨時會，破紀錄地增加了五名副主席，加總起來國民黨現在已經擁有八名副主席了。民進黨則是 齊聚在本土社團所舉辦的「台灣咱的國家」晚會中，這場聚會名義上是要談主權講人權的，實質上依舊是場「挺扁大會」。這兩場政治活動，相當生動地點出了兩個 黨的各自問題。

儘管這兩場戲碼都有演給全國民眾看的寓意，但無例外都突出了兩黨當下所必須面對的最重要課題：「安內」為上。擺不平內部，其他談再多其實都沒用。形象、政 綱再強的政黨，內部若是掣肘不斷、自亂陣腳，碰到選舉什麼戰力都發揮不出來，選敗了講什麼都是白搭。這或許是朝野兩黨都擺脫不了的宿命。

先看國民黨。一字排開八位副主席，別說國民黨自己的黨史，就算翻閱世界政黨史，都看不到這種陣仗，等於說光是主席加全部副主席就可以開個「副主席團會議」 了，整個安排既未突出「接班梯隊」的態勢，亦未呈現出「世代交替」的風格，至於「清新改革」就更不必提了。這種安排講好聽是「團結」，講難聽就是統統有獎 的權力分贓。說再白一些，國民黨終究就是國民黨，權力安排的考量永遠大過社會觀感，也難怪國民黨在多數民眾眼中的刻板印象永遠都去除不了。

至於民進黨，看來在未來相當長的一段時間裡，註定是要與陳水扁綁在一起了。蔡英文主席其實比誰都清楚，民進黨未來要逆勢再起，第一要務就是要與陳水扁切 割；同樣的陳水扁自己也心知肚明，他未來要在逆境中突圍，第一要務就是緊抱民進黨不放。當兩種完全矛盾的目標撞在一起，就像我們在晚會中所看到的畫面，滿 場群眾瀰漫著挺扁氛圍，蔡英文一人高倡人權後「快閃」，結果當然可想而知，蔡英文愈是迂迴切割，群眾挺扁聲浪愈是更堅實。這預示民進黨要邁入一個「沒有陳 水扁」時代，恐怕根本做不到！

換言之，朝野兩黨都有各自揮不掉的包袱，展望未來的歲月，用比較殘酷的話說，哪個政黨身上的包袱能發揮更大影響力，哪個政黨註定就是下一階段政黨角逐的輸家。

國民黨所面臨的全是老問題。都已經在野了八年，昔日近乎腐朽的政治文化還是未見褪盡，論字排輩、內鬥內行…等等令人詬病的舊習性，永遠都是如影隨行；八名 副主席的安排，已經將管理學上的「帕金森定律」發揮到極致，它的實質功能與領導副手完全無關，僅只是為了避免各方人馬的無端反彈。結果當然可想而知，它將 權力接班的時程無限期延後，也提供了各路人馬更多蓄積能量的機會。只不過，如果這般複雜的安排，在未來不能幫助馬政府將政績提振起來，就算再擴張成十六個 人來當副主席，也不具有任何意義。

民進黨同樣也沒得選擇。陳水扁畢竟是昔日的領袖，過去八年的歲月，陳水扁與民進黨等於就是連體嬰，民進黨因為陳水扁而得享執政榮耀，如今卻也因陳水扁涉及 貪腐而墮落蒙塵，整個民進黨的領導精英，不論派系、世代，誰能與陳水扁切割得一清二楚？理性的事實認定上，扁家究竟有無貪汙洗錢，誰心中會沒數？但在感性 情誼上，誰又能完全一刀切呢？等著看吧，待檢方偵查終結邁入起訴階段後，扁也隨即要交保候審了，屆時勢必又是如同猛虎出柙，隨著審判時程，未來少則一年半 載，多則兩三年甚至更長，扁肯定翻炒議題，拉長戰線，以政治對抗司法，小英能不被邊緣化就不錯了。另一方面，審判過程中也勢必進一步披露更多綠營不堪聞問 的貪腐內幕，民進黨既然已經錯過了切割的黃金時間，也只能概括承受了。

二○○八快接近尾聲了，這一年朝野兩黨都過得並不愉快，國民黨贏得了喪失八年的政權，但並未帶來「馬上好」，聲望跌停到令他們自己都覺難堪，一場使勁演出 的臨全會，除了多了五位副主席，並未讓人「一新耳目」；而民進黨則是到現在都還未從喪失政權的陰影中回神過來，與扁要切不切的兩難，還會在未來的歲月中持 續折磨這個政黨。結論是，哪個政黨能率先甩掉包袱，就會是下階段的贏家。