The DPP’s Dilemma in Tainan County

The DPP’s Dilemma in Tainan County
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 31, 2009

The Ma administration’s job performance has been poor. The negative impact of the Chen family corruption and money-laundering case has already been felt. The Democratic Progressive Party sees the year end County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections as a chance for a comeback. But Chen Shui-bian refuses to go away. Over the past few days, rumors suggest Chen Shui-bian intends to run in the Tainan County Legislative by-election. These rumors alone were enough to make DPP leaders wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.

Picture Tsai Ing-wen at DPP campaign rallies, blasting Ma administration ineptitude, the economic downturn, and rapidly worsening unemployment. Meanwhile everyone’s attention is focused on Chen Shui-bian’s election prospects in Tainan County. How can the Democratic Progressive Party possibly rally support under such conditions? How can it possibly maintain any political momentum it might get from Su Tseng-chang’s campaign for Taipei County Commissioner?

Bad as that might be, it’s not the worst case scenario. Suppose Chen Shui-bian is actually elected and becomes a Legislator. Chen Shui-bian, not to mention his followers, can inject billions of dollars into the campaigns of Democratic Progressive Party candidates. As Chen put it, “Which faction doesn’t owe me favors?” Also, once Ah-Bian stepped down the DPP descended into factional strife. The “Four Princes of the DPP” are terrified of the damage slanderous accusations might inflict upon them. The party has a leadership vacuum. If Chen Shui-bian becomes a Legislator, given his aptitude for political intrigue, and DPP Legislators’ habitual deference toward him, Chen could shatter the traditional separation between the DPP party leadership and the DPP legislative caucus. He could become the leader of the DPP legislative caucus, with his own troops to shield him and to do battle with the DPP party leadership.

In fact, Chen Shui-bian, whose reputation has already plumbed the depths, remains the Shadow Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. He wields more real power than Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen. Never mind that she was elected by the party membership. The entire year end County Magistrate and City Mayor Election is unfolding according to Chen Shui-bian’s plans.

For example, the DPP party leadership wants Su Tseng-chang to run for Taipei County Magistrate. They hope he can consolidate the DPP’s core support, and build momentum for the entire party. But Su Tseng-chang has his own plans for 2012. Therefore, to avoid offending fundamentalists within the party, Su Tseng-chang is unlikely to make any obvious moves to distance himself from Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian meanwhile, has repeatedly expressed goodwill towards Su Tseng-chang, simultaneously containing him, ensuring that he doesn’t dare make any dramatic moves to jettison Chen.

Add to this Tainan County. Ah-Bian first said he wanted Chen Tang-shan to run for Tainan County Magistrate. Later on rumors suggested he might support Yeh Yi-ching for the post, in the process opening up Yeh Yi-ching’s Legislative Yuan post for himself. If the DPP is afraid that Chen Shui-bian will act as a spoiler, undermining Yeh Yi-ching’s chances, it will be forced to support Chen Tang-shan instead. Ah-Bian would, in effect, have forced DPP party leaders to change their plans, and instead choose the candidate Ah-Bian wanted for Tainan County. Ah-Bian would have completely undermined the candidacies of the new generation candidates the Democratic Progressive Party was grooming.

If the Democratic Progressive Party insists on supporting new generation candidate Yeh Yi-ching, quid pro quo or not, then Yeh Yi-ching will be forced to resign her Legislative Yuan post before the election. If Yeh Yi-ching is elected Tainan County Magistrate, she will leave open a Legislative slot, and Chen Shui-bian will run for certain. If Chen Shui-bian is elected, the DPP’s worst nightmare will come true.

How did the Democratic Progressive Party get itself into such a predicament — one of its own making?

In fact, the harm Chen Shui-bian has inflicted upon the DPP, is hardly limited to his two terms as President. When Chen Shui-bian was President, he indeed had a plan for “long-term rule.” During the County Magistrate and City Mayor Elections of 2005, Ah-Bian hand-picked Luo Wen-chia and Lin Chia-lung, in the name of generational change. He forced out Barry Hou, with the intention of grooming Chen Chi-mai for Mayor of Kaohsiung. But when the Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering scandals broke, one after another, the Democratic Progressive Party suffered one defeat after another. An entire generation of younger candidates vanished from the political stage. If they want to make a comeback, they will need extraordinary political skills.

Chen Shui-bian of course has never possessed any political skills other than expediency and trickery. Now, in his own selfish interest, he is no longer trumpeting generational change. He is not even supporting Yeh Yi-ching, who was always extremely loyal to him in the past.

Chen Shui-bian may be selfish, but as long as Chen Shui-bian stirs the pot, Democratic Progressive Party elites will find it hard to escape blame. This is the DPP’s moment of truth. The Tainan County Commissioner’s Election has put the Democratic Progressive Party on the horns of a dilemma. It may indulge in wishful thinking or self-deception. But its past abetting of Chen Shui-bian’s conniving was politically and morally dubious, and also inflicted serious harm upon the Democratic Progressive Party, from which it will have difficulty recovering.

Tainan County has become a litmus test. The Democratic Progressive Party must stand by its own candidates and its own strategy. It must boldly disown Chen Shui-bian. Doing this may put Tainan County at risk. But it may help consolidate other counties and municipalities in which the Blue and Green camps are more evenly matched. More importantly, if Chen Shui-bian does make it into the Legislative Yuan, the Democratic Progressive Party must draw a clear line of distinction between itself and him. It must offer a bold new political platform befitting a major political party. Only then can it avoid becoming Chen Shui-bian’s “shadow party.”

中國時報 　2009.03.31
民進黨在台南縣的兩難困局
本報訊

馬政府施政狀況不佳，扁案負面效應告一段落，今年底的縣市長選舉，民進黨一直視為是谷底翻身的機會；但是，陳水扁陰影仍然揮之不去，這幾天傳出扁有意投身台南縣立委補選，單單想像此一訊息，就夠民進黨領導人夜半嚇出一身冷汗。

試想，當蔡英文帶領的團隊在競選造勢場合痛批馬政府執政，經濟不景氣、失業急速惡化時，全國焦點卻都是陳水扁台南縣選情，民進黨的勢還造得起來嗎？蘇貞昌參選台北縣所帶來的利基，還能維持嗎？

如果這個圖像令人怵目驚心，這可能還不是最糟的。假設陳水扁真的當選，進了立法院，不要說扁子弟兵眾多，扁就曾爆料，他至少拿出十億挹注民進黨候選人，「哪個派系沒欠我人情？」再加上，扁下台之後，民進黨派系惡鬥，天王們憂讒畏譏，黨內彌漫著一股「領導真空症候群」；一旦扁進入立院，以他之擅長權力操作，再加上民進黨立委對他的慣性服從，扁不無可能打破民進黨中央與立院黨團分立的傳統，仗著成為立院黨團老大，擁兵自重和黨中央對抗。

事實上，聲望已到谷底的陳水扁，迄今都還是民進黨的地下黨主席，比黨員選出的黨主席蔡英文更有實權，而整個年底縣市長的棋局也是照著扁的鋪排走。

例如，民進黨希望蘇貞昌角逐台北縣長，是希望他能穩住民進黨的基盤，帶動全黨的氣勢；但是，蘇貞昌自己則還有二○一二大位的考量，因此，為免得罪黨內基本教義派，蘇貞昌不太可能大動作和扁切割；而扁也一再表達善意，卻也同時牽制蘇貞昌，讓他不敢有大開大闔的動作。

再如台南縣，扁先表達支持陳唐山選台南縣長，事後卻又傳出可能支持葉宜津角逐縣長，扁則順理成章角逐葉宜津留下來的立委一職。如果民進黨因擔心扁攪局，波及葉宜津選情、被迫改支持陳唐山，則是形同黨中央硬生生改變規畫，不得不挑扁屬意的台南縣長人選，徹底的破壞民進黨裁培中生代布局。

如果民進黨中央堅持支持中壯代的葉宜津，則不論交不交換，或是葉宜津選前辭不辭立委，只要葉宜津當選縣長，留下來的立委一職，扁是選定了，如果扁當選，對民進黨而言，真是噩夢一場。

民進黨為何讓自己掉入這樣兩難的困局?

其實，扁對民進黨的傷害，並不是一、兩次的執政失敗而已。扁任總統時，確實有一套「長久執政」計畫，二○○五年縣市長選舉，以世代交替之名，扁欽點了羅文嘉、林佳龍等逐逐百里侯，更有意扶植陳其邁參選高雄市長，但是扁案陸續爆發，民進黨接連幾次大敗，好不容易裁培出來的中壯世代，幾乎全跟著落馬，一整個世代就此沒落，他們要再起來，都必須有非凡的戰功不可。

當然，扁向來只有權宜與權謀，現在為了自己的利益，不要說不會再唱世代交替的高調，連過去一向對他極為效忠的葉宜津，他也未必要支持。

扁可以自私自利，但是任扁如此翻雲覆雨，民進黨菁英難辭其咎。現在可以說是民進黨的「The Moment of Truth」（說真話的關鍵時刻），看到民進黨在台南縣長選舉的兩難處境，再如何鄉愿或自我欺騙，也應該清楚，過去縱容陳水扁，不但是「同流合污」的政治道德問題而已，也對民進黨發展造成難以復原的傷害。

台南縣已成指標，唯今之計，民進黨更要堅持既定的人選及步調；但是同時大力與扁切割，如此作法，也許危及台南縣，但可穩住其他藍綠比例均衡的縣市。更重要的，萬一扁將來真的進了立法院，民進黨不僅要義正嚴詞的和他畫清界線，也要提出大格局的政黨方針，才不會淪為扁的「影子政黨」。

The Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Committee’s Difficult Birth

The Legislative Yuan Cross-Strait Committee’s Difficult Birth
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 30, 2009

The KMT and the DPP always sing a different tune depending upon whether they are in or out of power. Over the past nine years, the Republic of China has had two different ruling parties. The thinking and rhetoric of the two major political parties has always varied depending on whether they were in or out of power. A typical example is their support or opposition to a Legislative Yuan committee on cross-Strait affairs.

Broad segments of society have long hoped to participate in formulating cross-Strait policy. During the Lee Teng-hui administration the National Unification Council invited Kang Ning-hsiang and others to participate. These invitations triggered conflicts within the Democratic Progressive Party. In 2000, the ROC underwent ruling party change. Chen Shui-bian immediately set up a “Bipartisan Cross-Strait Group,” with Lee Yuan-tse as convener. The purpose of the group was to replace the now hollowed out National Unification Council. Lee Yuan-tse had his own ideas about cross-Strait exchanges. Chen Shui-bian was also aggressive about cross-Strait policy. His bipartisan group went so far as to arrive at three understandings and four recommendations that clashed with the beliefs of Democratic Progressive Party fundamentalists. Among the most important recommendation was that the “One China” issue ought to be dealt with by referring to the ROC Constitution.

But the Kuomintang, which had just lost power, refused to take part in the non-partisan group. It felt the party with a ruling majority in the Legislative Yuan had the right to direct cross-Strait affairs. Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, the highest ranking member of the KMT at the time, first proposed this idea. By the end of June 2000 the “Legislative Yuan Mainland Policy and Cross-Strait Affairs committee” had prepared a draft law. Half a month later the Legislative Yuan issued a version approved by both parties. By the end of the year they were even holding meetings on Three Mini-Links. Not only did Democratic Progressive Party members not reject the bill, their representatives put their signatures to it. But shortly thereafter Chen Shui-bian dropped his “One Country on Each Side” bombshell, immediately putting a damper on cross-Strait exchanges. The cross-Straits committee, whose composition corresponded to that of the Legislative Yuan, found itself promptly mired in a Blue vs. Green partisan dispute. Democratic Progressive Party members boycotted the committee, and even accused it of infringing upon the constitutional authority of the Legislative Yuan’s Domestic Policy Committee and the constitutional authority of the President. A bipartisan committee that had alread met with the approval of the Office of the President and the Legislative Yuan was now shut down.

The KMT may have lost the initiative in cross-Strait decision-making, but not the desire to participate. In this context, a KMT/CCP forum was established. Pan Blue leaders visited the Mainland one after another, competing for the right to formulate cross-Strait policy. National Assembly Speaker Wang Jin-pyng was never able to visit the Mainland in his official capacity as Legislative Yuan Speaker. But he never abandoned the idea of strengthening the influence of the Legislative Yuan. From 2000 onwards, he periodically called upon the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee, especially before and after the Legislative Yuan Election.

Wang’s hope never became a reality. One reason was that the KMT/CCP forum ignored Chen Shui-bian’s “active management,” i.e., obstructionism, and bypassed the Legislative Yuan.

Cross-Strait exchanges are of the utmost importance to the Republic of China. During the Chen administration the DPP refused to allow the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. They were worried about the Pan Blue Camp’s greater numbers. They were worried they couldn’t control the Chen administration’s austerity policy. Unfortunately, after nine years, the KMT, which has regained control of the government, and which enjoys a supermajority in the Legislative Yuan, has completely forgotten how forcefully it argued on behalf of a cross-Strait Legislative Yuan committee, and how it demanded that the government’s cross-Strait policy be subject to Legislative Yuan oversight and checks and balances. Wang Jing-pyng once urged the Legislative Yuan to set up a cross-Strait committee. But now the situation is reversed. The Democratic Progressive Party is now calling for the establishment of such a committee. The KMT is now refusing, citing the same reasons as the DPP.

The Ma administration took office on May 20 last year. It has been forced to cope with the global economic crisis. Cross-Strait affairs has become its highest priority. Its responsibilities are varied and heavy. It has also had little time to implement them — less than a year. Far less time than Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian had — 20 years. The Ma administration, particularly the President, must incorporate the views of the Legislature into its policymaking process. This includes major and minor cross-Strait policies, including those of life and death importance, providing they don’t affect ROC national sovereignty. The right to administer cross-Strait policy does not mean the right to act arbitrarily and unilaterally. These affairs affect everyone. For example, Premier Liu opposes a referendum on a cross-Strait economic cooperation. But besides the Legislative Yuan, what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the policies have been subjected to public debate? Demands that the Legislative Yuan participate in the decision-making process are an integral part of our constitutional system. Besides, the KMT commands a supermajority. What does it have to fear?

Cross-Strait issues are the most controversial of all. The Legislature should be involved. Legislative participation will blunt objections from both the ruling and opposition parties. Providing of course that they reach agreements on key issues such as whether to first sign or first review cross-Strait agreements. The Legislature should take part in the process. Legislative participation will provide a buffer for cross-Strait negotiations. Legislative participation will prevent policy disputes from getting out of control and spilling onto the streets. The Legislative Yuan cross-Strait committee should set up the necessary mechanisms. It must not spin its wheels debating whether they are possible.

What Chen Shui-bian refused to do, Ma Ying-jeou must do. The Legislature must participate in the formulation of cross-Strait policy. A cross-Strait committee set up by the Legislative Yuan is a sensible move.

立法院兩岸小組因何難產
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.30 03:49 am


「換了位子就換了腦袋」，這句話在國、民兩黨身上，隨時隨地都適用；九年來，台灣歷經兩次政黨輪替，朝野兩大政黨從思維到語言，始終擺脫不掉這九字真言的魔咒。立法院應否設置兩岸事務對策小組，就是典型的例子

兩岸事務希能廣納參與，非始於今日，早在李登輝執政時代，國統會即延請康寧祥等，甚至引發民進黨內訌。二○○○年政黨輪替，陳水扁隨即成立「跨黨派兩岸小組」，由李遠哲出任召集人，取代虛而未廢的國統會。當時的李遠哲對兩岸交流很有想法，陳水扁同樣非常積極，跨黨派小組甚至做出不符合民進黨基本教義派的三點認知、四項建議，其中，最重要的建議就是：依據憲法處理一中爭議。

不過，甫失政權的國民黨卻拒絕參與跨黨派小組，並認為兩岸事務的主導權應回歸由多數黨掌控的立法院，當時國民黨所餘唯一最高權力人物的立法院長王金平就率先提出此一主張。二○○○年六月底「立法院大陸政策暨兩岸事務因應對策小組」設置要點草案旋即提出，半個月後朝野協商版本出爐，同年底甚至還為了兩岸小三通召開過會議。民進黨人本來不排斥，甚至協商代表都簽了字，但沒多久因陳水扁拋出「一邊一國論」，兩岸交流善意瞬間凍凝，這個依照國會政黨席次比例組成的兩岸小組，從此陷入藍綠口水爭議；民進黨人翻臉拒絕參與，甚至批評這個小組有摧毀立法院內政委員會與違憲侵犯總統職權之虞。結果，總統府與立法院兩個原本可以容納朝野共商兩岸政策的小組全部停擺。

當時國民黨在兩岸事務決策體系失去了角色，卻沒失去熱烈投入兩岸事務的企圖心，國共論壇遂在這個背景下順理成章地成立；藍營領袖先後登陸，爭搶兩岸發言權。王金平欲以國會議長身分訪問大陸的夢想落空，但他希望強化立法院政策影響力的想法並未放棄，從二○○○年開始，幾乎每隔一段時間，特別是在立法院換屆選舉前後，他總會一再呼籲，立法院「應該」成立兩岸事務小組。王金平的期盼迄未實現，原因之一是國共論壇無視扁政府的積極管理，間接取代了立法院的角色。

兩岸交流是影響台灣最重要的政策，扁時代民進黨排斥立法院成立兩岸小組，擔心的是人頭數不過藍營，難以主控扁政府緊縮的政策路線。遺憾的是，經過九年，國民黨重新掌握政權，又在立法院擁有絕對多數席次，卻完全忘記當年如何力主應在立法院成立兩岸小組，以及如何要求政府的兩岸政策應該受到國會合理監督制衡的那段往事。如今，倡議立法院成立兩岸小組的仍是王金平，這一回卻形勢逆轉，變成民進黨致函王金平要求成立，反對的倒是國民黨，但理由竟與當年的民進黨如出一轍。

馬政府自去年五二○就任以來，除了因應全球經濟危機，兩岸事務已經成為最高優先順位的政策主軸，不但是質量俱重，幅度與速度亦在一年不到的時間中，遠遠超越包括李登輝與陳水扁時代加總的二十年。但兩岸政策不論大小，若非涉及主權，即是攸關人民生活的實際利益，馬政府、特別是馬總統必須思考如何將代表最高民意的國會，納進決策程序之中；畢竟兩岸事務並非行政權可獨斷獨行，而是全民的事務，例如劉內閣反對兩岸經濟合作架構協議舉行公投，但除了立法院外還有什麼機制能確保此一協議能經過民意的激盪錘煉？立法院參與也許增加了決策過程的雜音，卻是憲政體制不可或缺的一環；何況，國民黨掌控絕對多數，又何懼之有？

兩岸政策是最具爭議的議題，國會參與非僅是應有之義，且足為朝野內外之緩衝。只要在重大關鍵上有所規範，如兩岸協議之先簽後審，即應使國會發生功能，一可作兩岸交涉之緩衝，再可免政策爭執失控於街頭。立院兩岸小組應朝如何設置來討論，而不宜阻滯在可否設置。

陳水扁拒絕的事，正是馬英九應該慎重思考的事。應當讓國會在兩岸事務中扮演應有的角色，而設置立院兩岸小組是合理的思考。

Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?

Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2009

Tsai Ing-wen has proposed championing Taiwan by adopting a “New Nativism.” In her view, the DPP’s “Old Nativism” has become too narrowly exclusive. That narrow understanding of nativism lacks the tolerance that an “immigrant society” needs the most.

[Translator's Note: Referring to the Taiwan region as an "immigrant society" or "society of immigrants" is politically misleading. The term "immigrant" denotes movement from one nation to another. Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China. ROC citizens who migrate from the Mainland to Taiwan are migrants, not "immigrants."]

Why is tolerance necessary? Tsai Ing-wen says the Democratic Progressive Party must adhere to its ideals, and that the difference between the DPP and the KMT is in their ideals. To achieve its ideals the DPP must expand its political base by becoming more tolerant. Tsai Ing-wen effectively conceded that the DPP’s “ideals” were not inclusive enough. She spoke repeatedly about “ideals,” but she never made clear what those “ideals” were. All that hemming and hawing. She obviously had something to say, but just couldn’t spit it out.

In fact, amidst all of Tsai Ing-wen’s rhetoric, her so-called “ideals” was merely a euphemism for Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party has used many euphemisms for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen can hardly deny that the Democratic Progressive Party’s ideal is Taiwan independence. But she apparently hopes to lead the Democratic Progressive Party away from the constraints of “narrowly defined Taiwan independence.” Hence her euphemistic invocation of “ideals.” As for her affirmation that “what an immigrant society most needs is tolerance,” she was unwilling to openly state that “an immigrant society must not divide people according to tribes.” She wanted to avoid criticism from members of her own party. Her rhetoric was sufficiently convoluted to resembled a pretzel.

Put simply, Tsai Ing-wen’s “New Nativism” can be understood as no further resort to dividing people by provinicial origin, i.e., “tolerance,” in the pursuit of independence, which will remain the DPP’s “ideal,” but which will no longer be spelled out.

This kind of thinking was intended to be a kind of breakthrough. But frankly, it offered nothing new. The DPP’s “Resolution on the Nation’s Future” and “Resolution on Ethnic Groups” covered these issues long ago. The problem is the DPP’s past actions have already made Taiwan independence and a “Taiwanese ethnic identity” two sides of the same coin. One can no longer advocate Taiwan independence without dividing Republic of China citizens into “Native Taiwanese” and “Mainlanders.” Perhaps Taiwan independence is a phony issue. Perhaps the DPP’s real forte is dividing people into tribes.

Tsai Ing-wen deserves affirmation for being sensitive to the problem. But she has not offered much of a solution. If Taiwan independence is still the DPP’s ideal, it will remain mired in a double dilemma. It will remain incapable of achieving Taiwan independence in the global arena, even as it continues to divide Republic of China citizens into “Taiwanese” and “Chinese” in the domestic arena. Taiwan independence, by its very nature, divides people. A “Taiwan independence ideology that tolerates diversity” is a logical impossibility. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen avoid the term “Taiwan independence” and substitute the euphemism “ideal?”

The fact that “Nativism” is considered compatible with tolerance is due to the DPP’s past efforts. But Taiwan independence is, on the face of it, anything but tolerant. After all, its goal is to overthrow the Republic of China. It is tolerant neither in name nor in substance. And since it is not even tolerant in name, how can it possibly be tolerant in substance? Yet Tsai Ing-wen would make a conceptual leap from “Tolerant Nativism” to “Tolerant Taiwan independence.” That is akin to expecting a strawberry patch to yield apples.

The DPP’s problem is its adherence to Taiwan independence. Its increasingly narrow definition of “Old Nativism” was the inevitable result of its stubborn adherence to Taiwan independence. But for the majority of people on Taiwan, if the DPP refrains from advocating Taiwan independence, “Nativism” is not an issue. Apart from the DPP, most people assume that “new and old immigrants, regardless of provincial origin, are all Natives.” The above is a quote from Tsai Ing-wen. But it is something that Tsai Ing-wen knows the DPP cannot possibly either endorse or achieve.

Take Fan Lanqin for example. Fan’s remarks can be characterized as an isolated extreme. Criticism from within the Pan Blue attests to that. By contrast, for the DPP ethnic demagoguery is second nature. Ethnic demagoguery is the DPP’s defining characteristic. Fan Lanqin referred to himself, in self-mockery, as a “high class mainlander.” Overnight the DPP twisted his meaning and transformed it into a politcal codeword. They even mocked Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan as “high class mainlanders,” attempting to equate them with Fan Lanqin. Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen was trying to use euphemisms such as “Tolerant Nativism” to clean up the Democratic Progressive Party’s image. She appears to be a slow learner.

The Democratic Progressive Party has long equated Taiwan independence with Nativism. Taiwan independence is Nativism. Nativism is Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Nativism to dress up Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Taiwan independence to distort the meaning of Nativism. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to distinguish between the two. She wants to use “Tolerant Nativism” to achieve their “ideal,” i.e., Taiwan independence. She can talk about “Tolerant Nativism.” She can avoid talking about Taiwan independence, by referring to it euphemistically as their “ideal.” But this is akin to “covering one’s ears while stealing a bell.”

If the DPP does not resolve the issue of Taiwan independence, it will never resolve the issue of Nativism. As mentioned before, the main reason “Nativism” has been so narrowly defined is Taiwan independence. Without Taiwan independence, Nativism need no longer be so narrowly defined. A “Tolerant Taiwan independence” is a contradiction in terms. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to emancipate liberate itself from narrowly defined Nativism. If one is determined to overthrow the nation, how can one possibly avoid tearing society apart?

Has Chairman Tsai thought this through?

蔡英文為何吞吞吐吐
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.27 04:37 am

蔡英文主張「以新本土觀」捍衛台灣；她認為，民進黨的「舊本土觀」，被窄化成一種排他性的觀念，那種窄化的本土詮釋忽視了移民社會最需要的包容。

為何必須包容？蔡英文說：因為民進黨必須堅持理想性，而民進黨與國民黨的區隔就在理想性；要實現理想，就必須以包容性擴大社會基礎。蔡英文不啻指出，民進黨的「理想」的「包容性」不夠；但她提出了一連串的「理想」，卻終篇未敘明「理想」為何物？吞吞吐吐，欲言又止。

其實，在蔡英文此次提出的整套論述體系中，所謂「理想」，就是「台獨」的代稱（民進黨曾用過許多代稱，來代替指涉「台獨」）。此時此際，蔡英文不可能否認「台獨」是民進黨的「理想」，但她似亦有意帶領民進黨擺脫「窄化的台獨」之束縛，於是就用了「理想」這個「心照不宣」的詞彙。至於「移民社會最需要的包容」（提出期許），則應當是她不願直言的「移民社會不宜撕裂族群」（避免批判），語氣亦極盡曲折迂迴之能事。

因此，蔡英文的「新本土論述」，可以被解讀為：不再用族群撕裂的手法（要包容），來追求台獨（理想，但不可明說）。

這樣的思考雖然意在突破，卻無太多新意，其實民進黨的《國家前途決議文》及《族群決議文》，皆已早著先鞭。問題是：民進黨過去的政治操作，已使台獨與族群撕裂變成一體兩面；不可能倡台獨而不談撕裂，甚至台獨只是假議題，而撕裂才是民進黨的真本事。

蔡英文的警覺與思考是可以肯定的，但她提出的救治辦法卻無甚高論。因為，民進黨若仍以「台獨」為「理想」，即勢將繼續陷於對外台獨不成，對內繼續撕裂的困境；簡約而言，台獨就是撕裂，根本不可能出現一種所謂的「族群包容的台獨建國論述」。倘非如此，蔡英文何以諱言「台獨」，而用「理想」來代稱？

「本土」如今已然是一個具有包容性的概念，對此民進黨過去的努力與貢獻有目共睹；但「台獨」在應然面上卻不是一個包容性的概念（畢竟是要顛覆中華民國），且在實然面上也不可能是一個包容性的概念（既在應然面上不包容，如何在實然面包容？）。蔡英文若欲從「包容性的本土」跳躍至「包容性的台獨」，不啻是想從草莓園裡長出蘋果。

民進黨的問題在「台獨」。「舊本土觀」之所以「窄化」，正是因為「台獨」；但對於整體台灣的多數民眾而言，若不主張台獨，「本土」即無「窄化」的問題。除了民進黨以外，多數民眾皆理所當然地認為：「新舊移民不分族群都能共享『本土』。」此處引號內為蔡英文的用語，這卻正是蔡英文知道民進黨做不到之處。

以范蘭欽事件為例。范的言論可謂是一極端的孤例，由泛藍內部對其批判可證；但民進黨對族群議題的惡劣操弄，卻形同是該黨「天賦」的「集體人格」。范蘭欽一句耍冷自我調侃的「我是高級外省人哦」，一夕之間被民進黨廣泛地扭曲用為族群操作的口頭禪，甚至公開比附指馬英九及劉兆玄皆是「高級外省人」，欲將之「范蘭欽化」。而蔡英文竟然欲以純屬修詞技法的所謂「包容性的本土」來期許民進黨，實在猶不如一般書生之見。

民進黨始終將「台獨」與「本土」劃上等號。台獨就是本土，本土就是台獨；以本土裝飾台獨，以台獨扭曲本土。現在，蔡英文似乎想將之剝離分割，欲以「包容的本土」來實現「理想」（台獨），甚或只談「包容的本土」，諱談台獨（代稱為「理想」），此皆不啻掩耳盜鈴。

民進黨不解決「台獨」問題，即無可能解決其「本土」問題。如前所述，本土「窄化」的主因是台獨；若無台獨，本土必可走出「窄化」。其實，正因為不可能有「包容的台獨」，所以民進黨才始終走不出其「窄化的本土」。欲顛覆國家，如何可能不撕裂社會？

不知蔡主席以為然否？

Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?

Tsai Ing-wen, Why All the Hemming and Hawing?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 27, 2009

Tsai Ing-wen has proposed championing Taiwan by adopting a “New Nativism.” In her view, the DPP’s “Old Nativism” has become too narrowly exclusive. That narrow understanding of nativism lacks the tolerance that an “immigrant society” needs the most.

[Translator's Note: Referring to the Taiwan region as an "immigrant society" or "society of immigrants" is politically misleading. The term "immigrant" denotes movement from one nation to another. Taiwan is a region of the Republic of China. ROC citizens who migrate from the Mainland to Taiwan are migrants, not "immigrants."]

Why is tolerance necessary? Tsai Ing-wen says the Democratic Progressive Party must adhere to its ideals, and that the difference between the DPP and the KMT is in their ideals. To achieve its ideals the DPP must expand its political base by becoming more tolerant. Tsai Ing-wen effectively conceded that the DPP’s “ideals” were not inclusive enough. She spoke repeatedly about “ideals,” but she never made clear what those “ideals” were. All that hemming and hawing. She obviously had something to say, but just couldn’t spit it out.

In fact, amidst all of Tsai Ing-wen’s rhetoric, her so-called “ideals” was merely a euphemism for Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party has used many euphemisms for Taiwan independence. Tsai Ing-wen can hardly deny that the Democratic Progressive Party’s ideal is Taiwan independence. But she apparently hopes to lead the Democratic Progressive Party away from the constraints of “narrowly defined Taiwan independence.” Hence her euphemistic invocation of “ideals.” As for her affirmation that “what an immigrant society most needs is tolerance,” she was unwilling to openly state that “an immigrant society must not divide people according to tribes.” She wanted to avoid criticism from members of her own party. Her rhetoric was sufficiently convoluted to resembled a pretzel.

Put simply, Tsai Ing-wen’s “New Nativism” can be understood as no further resort to dividing people by provinicial origin, i.e., “tolerance,” in the pursuit of independence, which will remain the DPP’s “ideal,” but which will no longer be spelled out.

This kind of thinking was intended to be a kind of breakthrough. But frankly, it offered nothing new. The DPP’s “Resolution on the Nation’s Future” and “Resolution on Ethnic Groups” covered these issues long ago. The problem is the DPP’s past actions have already made Taiwan independence and a “Taiwanese ethnic identity” two sides of the same coin. One can no longer advocate Taiwan independence without dividing Republic of China citizens into “Native Taiwanese” and “Mainlanders.” Perhaps Taiwan independence is a phony issue. Perhaps the DPP’s real forte is dividing people into tribes.

Tsai Ing-wen deserves affirmation for being sensitive to the problem. But she has not offered much of a solution. If Taiwan independence is still the DPP’s ideal, it will remain mired in a double dilemma. It will remain incapable of achieving Taiwan independence in the global arena, even as it continues to divide Republic of China citizens into “Taiwanese” and “Chinese” in the domestic arena. Taiwan independence, by its very nature, divides people. A “Taiwan independence ideology that tolerates diversity” is a logical impossibility. Why else would Tsai Ing-wen avoid the term “Taiwan independence” and substitute the euphemism “ideal?”

The fact that “Nativism” is considered compatible with tolerance is due to the DPP’s past efforts. But Taiwan independence is, on the face of it, anything but tolerant. After all, its goal is to overthrow the Republic of China. It is tolerant neither in name nor in substance. And since it is not even tolerant in name, how can it possibly be tolerant in substance? Yet Tsai Ing-wen would make a conceptual leap from “Tolerant Nativism” to “Tolerant Taiwan independence.” That is akin to expecting a strawberry patch to yield apples.

The DPP’s problem is its adherence to Taiwan independence. Its increasingly narrow definition of “Old Nativism” was the inevitable result of its stubborn adherence to Taiwan independence. But for the majority of people on Taiwan, if the DPP refrains from advocating Taiwan independence, “Nativism” is not an issue. Apart from the DPP, most people assume that “new and old immigrants, regardless of provincial origin, are all Natives.” The above is a quote from Tsai Ing-wen. But it is something that Tsai Ing-wen knows the DPP cannot possibly either endorse or achieve.

Take Fan Lanqin for example. Fan’s remarks can be characterized as an isolated extreme. Criticism from within the Pan Blue attests to that. By contrast, for the DPP ethnic demagoguery is second nature. Ethnic demagoguery is the DPP’s defining characteristic. Fan Lanqin referred to himself, in self-mockery, as a “high class mainlander.” Overnight the DPP twisted his meaning and transformed it into a politcal codeword. They even mocked Ma Ying-jeou and Liu Chao-hsuan as “high class mainlanders,” attempting to equate them with Fan Lanqin. Meanwhile Tsai Ing-wen was trying to use euphemisms such as “Tolerant Nativism” to clean up the Democratic Progressive Party’s image. She appears to be a slow learner.

The Democratic Progressive Party has long equated Taiwan independence with Nativism. Taiwan independence is Nativism. Nativism is Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Nativism to dress up Taiwan independence. The DPP uses Taiwan independence to distort the meaning of Nativism. Now Tsai Ing-wen wants to distinguish between the two. She wants to use “Tolerant Nativism” to achieve their “ideal,” i.e., Taiwan independence. She can talk about “Tolerant Nativism.” She can avoid talking about Taiwan independence, by referring to it euphemistically as their “ideal.” But this is akin to “covering one’s ears while stealing a bell.”

If the DPP does not resolve the issue of Taiwan independence, it will never resolve the issue of Nativism. As mentioned before, the main reason “Nativism” has been so narrowly defined is Taiwan independence. Without Taiwan independence, Nativism need no longer be so narrowly defined. A “Tolerant Taiwan independence” is a contradiction in terms. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party has never been able to emancipate liberate itself from narrowly defined Nativism. If one is determined to overthrow the nation, how can one possibly avoid tearing society apart?

Has Chairman Tsai thought this through?

蔡英文為何吞吞吐吐
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.27 04:37 am

蔡英文主張「以新本土觀」捍衛台灣；她認為，民進黨的「舊本土觀」，被窄化成一種排他性的觀念，那種窄化的本土詮釋忽視了移民社會最需要的包容。

為何必須包容？蔡英文說：因為民進黨必須堅持理想性，而民進黨與國民黨的區隔就在理想性；要實現理想，就必須以包容性擴大社會基礎。蔡英文不啻指出，民進黨的「理想」的「包容性」不夠；但她提出了一連串的「理想」，卻終篇未敘明「理想」為何物？吞吞吐吐，欲言又止。

其實，在蔡英文此次提出的整套論述體系中，所謂「理想」，就是「台獨」的代稱（民進黨曾用過許多代稱，來代替指涉「台獨」）。此時此際，蔡英文不可能否認「台獨」是民進黨的「理想」，但她似亦有意帶領民進黨擺脫「窄化的台獨」之束縛，於是就用了「理想」這個「心照不宣」的詞彙。至於「移民社會最需要的包容」（提出期許），則應當是她不願直言的「移民社會不宜撕裂族群」（避免批判），語氣亦極盡曲折迂迴之能事。

因此，蔡英文的「新本土論述」，可以被解讀為：不再用族群撕裂的手法（要包容），來追求台獨（理想，但不可明說）。

這樣的思考雖然意在突破，卻無太多新意，其實民進黨的《國家前途決議文》及《族群決議文》，皆已早著先鞭。問題是：民進黨過去的政治操作，已使台獨與族群撕裂變成一體兩面；不可能倡台獨而不談撕裂，甚至台獨只是假議題，而撕裂才是民進黨的真本事。

蔡英文的警覺與思考是可以肯定的，但她提出的救治辦法卻無甚高論。因為，民進黨若仍以「台獨」為「理想」，即勢將繼續陷於對外台獨不成，對內繼續撕裂的困境；簡約而言，台獨就是撕裂，根本不可能出現一種所謂的「族群包容的台獨建國論述」。倘非如此，蔡英文何以諱言「台獨」，而用「理想」來代稱？

「本土」如今已然是一個具有包容性的概念，對此民進黨過去的努力與貢獻有目共睹；但「台獨」在應然面上卻不是一個包容性的概念（畢竟是要顛覆中華民國），且在實然面上也不可能是一個包容性的概念（既在應然面上不包容，如何在實然面包容？）。蔡英文若欲從「包容性的本土」跳躍至「包容性的台獨」，不啻是想從草莓園裡長出蘋果。

民進黨的問題在「台獨」。「舊本土觀」之所以「窄化」，正是因為「台獨」；但對於整體台灣的多數民眾而言，若不主張台獨，「本土」即無「窄化」的問題。除了民進黨以外，多數民眾皆理所當然地認為：「新舊移民不分族群都能共享『本土』。」此處引號內為蔡英文的用語，這卻正是蔡英文知道民進黨做不到之處。

以范蘭欽事件為例。范的言論可謂是一極端的孤例，由泛藍內部對其批判可證；但民進黨對族群議題的惡劣操弄，卻形同是該黨「天賦」的「集體人格」。范蘭欽一句耍冷自我調侃的「我是高級外省人哦」，一夕之間被民進黨廣泛地扭曲用為族群操作的口頭禪，甚至公開比附指馬英九及劉兆玄皆是「高級外省人」，欲將之「范蘭欽化」。而蔡英文竟然欲以純屬修詞技法的所謂「包容性的本土」來期許民進黨，實在猶不如一般書生之見。

民進黨始終將「台獨」與「本土」劃上等號。台獨就是本土，本土就是台獨；以本土裝飾台獨，以台獨扭曲本土。現在，蔡英文似乎想將之剝離分割，欲以「包容的本土」來實現「理想」（台獨），甚或只談「包容的本土」，諱談台獨（代稱為「理想」），此皆不啻掩耳盜鈴。

民進黨不解決「台獨」問題，即無可能解決其「本土」問題。如前所述，本土「窄化」的主因是台獨；若無台獨，本土必可走出「窄化」。其實，正因為不可能有「包容的台獨」，所以民進黨才始終走不出其「窄化的本土」。欲顛覆國家，如何可能不撕裂社會？

不知蔡主席以為然否？

Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous

Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

Two days ago the Government Information Office fired Kuo Kuan-ying for making inappropriate remarks. President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-hsuan rushed to quench any fires. President Ma’s remarks were basically feeling oriented. He said “We are all one people. We should accommodate and care for each other.” He made a low-keyed appeal for ethnic harmony. Premier Liu, on the other hand, proposed the passage of an “Ethnic Equality Act.” He wanted a law promoting ethnic equality. [Translator's Note: On today's Taiwan "ethnic" and "ethnicity" are misleading terms that actually refer to provincial origin.]

Five years ago a number of legislators proposed ethnic equality draft laws. Four or five different versions were put forth. The laws would punish speech the incitement of ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination. Five years later, none of them have become law. Yesterday, the head of the Executive Yuan again proposed the passage of legislation promoting ethnic equality. We contend that we must be concerned about ethnic issues, but that we must do not rush to pass laws. Before speaking, the Premier should also be careful and do some homework.

First of all, if we want to discuss ethnic harmony, we must first understand a few concepts from cultural anthropology. And if we want to promote ethnic equality, we must first appreciate the relevance of political philosophy. Human civilization is dynamic, and is undergoing evolution. Although each nation’s development varies, humanism has been ascendant ever since the Middle Ages. Human society has steadily moved away from the Law of the Jungle, in which the strong bully the weak, and to the victor belong the spoils. It has steadily moved towards civilization, toward mutual respect, mutual concern, and mutual tolerance. The United States liberated black slaves. South Africa abolished Apartheid. Many nations elevated women’s status. The international community imposed sanctions against race wars. These trends were inevitable. In other words, given humanist concepts of mutual respect and mutual concern, social evolution was already tending toward ethnic equality.

We now have a clearer understanding of when a nation should use political or legal means to intervene in social evolution. Unless a nation’s culture makes it naturally resistant to equality, unless the move toward equality is so sluggish that disadvantaged groups are unlikely to receive equal treatment in the foreseeable future, the government should refrain from intervention. It should refrain from forcibly imposing an “Ethnic Equality Act” on the public. The United States’ affirmative action laws and South Africa’s racial equality laws or domestic gender equality laws are examples. Legislators should first take note of a nation’s speed of evolution. Only then are they justified in using political force to provide an extra push. Philosophers in the United States who favored equal rights laws pushed for an equal rights law only because long-oppressed black people found it difficult to improve their social status in the short term. They promoted equal rights laws only to prevent the adverse socio-economic environment of earlier generations handicapping the development of later generations.

But let’s return to Taiwan. We see no need for such legislation. Taiwan’s so-called “native” and “mainlander” groups are hardly comparable to blacks and whites in the US, with their highly visible genetic differences. One can hardly distinguish who’s who with the naked eye. Marriages between “natives” and “mainlanders” is widespread. Decades later, unless one digs out the family tree, one has no way to determine one’s ethnic background. Not only is provincial origin difficult to determine, it is even increasingly difficult to distinguish between Han Chinese and Aborigines. Moreover, Taiwan’s educational standards are high. The public is cultured. People seldom encounter ethnic antagonism or discrimination in their daily exchanges. Kuo Kuan-ying is a rare case, and constitutes only a minute part of Taiwan’s cultural evolution. He has no affect on the overall trend toward social harmony and equality. To pass a law with great fanfare in response to something that has no impact on the overall situation is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It may create ethnic stereotypes where none existed.

The real lesson to be learned from Kuo Kuan-ying’s inappropriate remarks, is to seek improvement. The crux of the problem is politicians, not laws. These problems arise within the halls of parliament and at political rallies, rather than amidst civil society. These problems are incited by extremist talking heads, not by ordinary people in daily life. In short, almost all ethnic frictions are incited by a tiny minority of extremists with political axes to grind. Over the past decade, such terms as “Chinese Pigs,” and remarks as “We reserve the right to rape Chinese women” have emerged, along with Kuo Kuan-ying’s “tai ba zi” and “dai wan.” Behind all of these are reunification vs. independence political agendas. A tiny minority have falsely equated ethnicity with advocacy of reunification or independence. The source of ethnic frictions on Taiwan today is the result of narrowly defining ethnicity in order to attack another’s ‘ political stance.

Given the rapid integration of ethnic groups on Taiwan, and the social harmony that prevails within civil society, any troubles have been stirred up by a tiny minority of politicians. Why pass laws to constrain speech relating to ethnicity? If one really wishes to constrain such speech, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee should constrain demagogues in parliament. If these disgusting individuals cease their demagoguery, ethnic equality will naturally prevail. Do we really expect these demagogues to enact an “Anti-Ethnic Demagoguery Law?” Spare us.

中國時報 　2009.03.26
社論－族群本無事 立法惹塵埃
本報訊

針對郭冠英的不當言論，行政院新聞局在兩天前做出免職的處分，而馬總統與行政院劉院長也在日前跳上火線，做進一步的消毒。馬總統的發言基本上是感性面的，以「大家都是一家人，彼此本應包容關愛」的基調，去柔性訴求族群和諧。而劉院長則提出催生「族群平等法」的看法，希望以法律的規範去進一步促成族群平等。

族群平等法草案在五年前已有立委提出，先後累積了四至五個不同的版本，其立法目的都是要對仇恨或歧視族群的言論予以處罰，但是五年來皆未完成立法。昨天，由最高行政首長再提族群平等立法之議，我們認為值得對此表達嚴肅的看法。我們的論點是：族群問題可以關心，但千萬不要倉卒立法規範。行政首長在發言之前，也該謹慎地做些功課。

首先，要談族群融合，就必須要具備些文化人類學的基本概念，而要促成族群平等，也要先理解相關的政治哲學理念。人類文明本來就是一動態演進的歷程，雖然各國各地發展的軌跡不一，但中世紀以來隨著人本理念的擴展，人類社會總是逐漸從弱肉強食、凌弱暴寡的生物競逐，慢慢往禮樂教化、尊重關懷、多元包容的方向發展。在這樣的文化演進大潮流之下，美國黑奴的解放、南非種族隔離的廢除、各地女性地位的提升、國際社會對種族戰事的制裁，都是必然的趨勢。換言之，在尊重與關注的人本理念下，族群之間原本就有「趨向平等」的文化演進趨勢。

有了這樣的了解，我們就能清楚掌握國家是否應該以政治或法律手段介入社會演進，去強行推動「族群平等法」。大體而言，除非社會文化自然趨向族群平等的速度極為緩慢，使得社會上的弱勢族群難以在可見未來得到平等的待遇，否則國家都不該以立法手段介入。以美國的平權法案(affirmative action)、南非的種族平等法案或國內有關兩性平權的法案為例，立法者一定要先看到平等文化演變的滯慢，才有理由以政治力強推一把。事實上，美國諸多贊成平權法案的哲學家更明白指出，正因為在短期內黑人久經壓抑的社會地位難以改變，為免前一代不利的社經環境繼續影響下一代的發展，才會去推動平權法案。

但是回過頭來看看台灣的情況，我們委實看不出有強制立法的必要性。台灣的所謂「本省」與「外省」族群並沒有如黑人、白人間的基因外顯特質，因此根本難以用肉眼區辨誰是哪一族群之人。此外，台灣不同省籍之間通婚普遍，數十年下來除非強翻族譜，否則也無從判斷族群背景，不但省籍難辨，連漢人與原住民之間都漸難區分。再者，台灣的教育水準高、民風淳厚，民間交往也鮮聞族群對立或歧視。因此，像郭冠英這樣的特例，頂多只是台灣文化演進的極少數，完全不影響社會整體的和諧平等走向。若要以不影響大局的特例去大張旗鼓制定一個法，我們認為實在沒有必要，反而可能把原本模糊的族群標記刻板化。

如果真要從郭冠英的不當言論中得到教訓、尋求改進，恐怕癥結在於政治人物、而非法律條文；在國會殿堂與競選活動、而非民間社會；在那些唯恐天下不亂的偏頗媒體名嘴、而非台灣人民之間的日常對話。簡言之，幾乎所有的族群摩擦都來自少數人的政治症候群。過去十年間，台灣社會出現「中國豬」、「保留強姦中國婦女的權利」的謬言，也出現此次郭冠英的「台巴子」、「歹丸」荒腔，其背後都有或統或獨的政治牽連。少數人主觀上將族群背景與統獨立場結合，就以族群偏狹的字句攻擊政治立場之異己；這正是今日台灣族群摩擦的源頭。

既然台灣族群之間融合迅速、民間社會和諧，只有極少數政治人物性喜興風作浪，那麼哪有必要治絲益棼，對族群言論另行立法呢？如果真要約束言論，那麼最該做約束的就是立法院紀律委員會。只要那些討厭的政治人物少造些口業，台灣社會的族群就自然平等。若要由這些造口業的政治人物制定一部「族群口業禁制法」，省省吧！

Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous

Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

Two days ago the Government Information Office fired Kuo Kuan-ying for making inappropriate remarks. President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-hsuan rushed to quench any fires. President Ma’s remarks were basically feeling oriented. He said “We are all one people. We should accommodate and care for each other.” He made a low-keyed appeal for ethnic harmony. Premier Liu, on the other hand, proposed the passage of an “Ethnic Equality Act.” He wanted a law promoting ethnic equality. [Translator's Note: On today's Taiwan "ethnic" and "ethnicity" are misleading terms that actually refer to provincial origin.]

Five years ago a number of legislators proposed ethnic equality draft laws. Four or five different versions were put forth. The laws would punish speech the incitement of ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination. Five years later, none of them have become law. Yesterday, the head of the Executive Yuan again proposed the passage of legislation promoting ethnic equality. We contend that we must be concerned about ethnic issues, but that we must do not rush to pass laws. Before speaking, the Premier should also be careful and do some homework.

First of all, if we want to discuss ethnic harmony, we must first understand a few concepts from cultural anthropology. And if we want to promote ethnic equality, we must first appreciate the relevance of political philosophy. Human civilization is dynamic, and is undergoing evolution. Although each nation’s development varies, humanism has been ascendant ever since the Middle Ages. Human society has steadily moved away from the Law of the Jungle, in which the strong bully the weak, and to the victor belong the spoils. It has steadily moved towards civilization, toward mutual respect, mutual concern, and mutual tolerance. The United States liberated black slaves. South Africa abolished Apartheid. Many nations elevated women’s status. The international community imposed sanctions against race wars. These trends were inevitable. In other words, given humanist concepts of mutual respect and mutual concern, social evolution was already tending toward ethnic equality.

We now have a clearer understanding of when a nation should use political or legal means to intervene in social evolution. Unless a nation’s culture makes it naturally resistant to equality, unless the move toward equality is so sluggish that disadvantaged groups are unlikely to receive equal treatment in the foreseeable future, the government should refrain from intervention. It should refrain from forcibly imposing an “Ethnic Equality Act” on the public. The United States’ affirmative action laws and South Africa’s racial equality laws or domestic gender equality laws are examples. Legislators should first take note of a nation’s speed of evolution. Only then are they justified in using political force to provide an extra push. Philosophers in the United States who favored equal rights laws pushed for an equal rights law only because long-oppressed black people found it difficult to improve their social status in the short term. They promoted equal rights laws only to prevent the adverse socio-economic environment of earlier generations handicapping the development of later generations.

But let’s return to Taiwan. We see no need for such legislation. Taiwan’s so-called “native” and “mainlander” groups are hardly comparable to blacks and whites in the US, with their highly visible genetic differences. One can hardly distinguish who’s who with the naked eye. Marriages between “natives” and “mainlanders” is widespread. Decades later, unless one digs out the family tree, one has no way to determine one’s ethnic background. Not only is provincial origin difficult to determine, it is even increasingly difficult to distinguish between Han Chinese and Aborigines. Moreover, Taiwan’s educational standards are high. The public is cultured. People seldom encounter ethnic antagonism or discrimination in their daily exchanges. Kuo Kuan-ying is a rare case, and constitutes only a minute part of Taiwan’s cultural evolution. He has no affect on the overall trend toward social harmony and equality. To pass a law with great fanfare in response to something that has no impact on the overall situation is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It may create ethnic stereotypes where none existed.

The real lesson to be learned from Kuo Kuan-ying’s inappropriate remarks, is to seek improvement. The crux of the problem is politicians, not laws. These problems arise within the halls of parliament and at political rallies, rather than amidst civil society. These problems are incited by extremist talking heads, not by ordinary people in daily life. In short, almost all ethnic frictions are incited by a tiny minority of extremists with political axes to grind. Over the past decade, such terms as “Chinese Pigs,” and remarks as “We reserve the right to rape Chinese women” have emerged, along with Kuo Kuan-ying’s “tai ba zi” and “dai wan.” Behind all of these are reunification vs. independence political agendas. A tiny minority have falsely equated ethnicity with advocacy of reunification or independence. The source of ethnic frictions on Taiwan today is the result of narrowly defining ethnicity in order to attack another’s ‘ political stance.

Given the rapid integration of ethnic groups on Taiwan, and the social harmony that prevails within civil society, any troubles have been stirred up by a tiny minority of politicians. Why pass laws to constrain speech relating to ethnicity? If one really wishes to constrain such speech, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee should constrain demagogues in parliament. If these disgusting individuals cease their demagoguery, ethnic equality will naturally prevail. Do we really expect these demagogues to enact an “Anti-Ethnic Demagoguery Law?” Spare us.

中國時報 　2009.03.26
社論－族群本無事 立法惹塵埃
本報訊

針對郭冠英的不當言論，行政院新聞局在兩天前做出免職的處分，而馬總統與行政院劉院長也在日前跳上火線，做進一步的消毒。馬總統的發言基本上是感性面的，以「大家都是一家人，彼此本應包容關愛」的基調，去柔性訴求族群和諧。而劉院長則提出催生「族群平等法」的看法，希望以法律的規範去進一步促成族群平等。

族群平等法草案在五年前已有立委提出，先後累積了四至五個不同的版本，其立法目的都是要對仇恨或歧視族群的言論予以處罰，但是五年來皆未完成立法。昨天，由最高行政首長再提族群平等立法之議，我們認為值得對此表達嚴肅的看法。我們的論點是：族群問題可以關心，但千萬不要倉卒立法規範。行政首長在發言之前，也該謹慎地做些功課。

首先，要談族群融合，就必須要具備些文化人類學的基本概念，而要促成族群平等，也要先理解相關的政治哲學理念。人類文明本來就是一動態演進的歷程，雖然各國各地發展的軌跡不一，但中世紀以來隨著人本理念的擴展，人類社會總是逐漸從弱肉強食、凌弱暴寡的生物競逐，慢慢往禮樂教化、尊重關懷、多元包容的方向發展。在這樣的文化演進大潮流之下，美國黑奴的解放、南非種族隔離的廢除、各地女性地位的提升、國際社會對種族戰事的制裁，都是必然的趨勢。換言之，在尊重與關注的人本理念下，族群之間原本就有「趨向平等」的文化演進趨勢。

有了這樣的了解，我們就能清楚掌握國家是否應該以政治或法律手段介入社會演進，去強行推動「族群平等法」。大體而言，除非社會文化自然趨向族群平等的速度極為緩慢，使得社會上的弱勢族群難以在可見未來得到平等的待遇，否則國家都不該以立法手段介入。以美國的平權法案(affirmative action)、南非的種族平等法案或國內有關兩性平權的法案為例，立法者一定要先看到平等文化演變的滯慢，才有理由以政治力強推一把。事實上，美國諸多贊成平權法案的哲學家更明白指出，正因為在短期內黑人久經壓抑的社會地位難以改變，為免前一代不利的社經環境繼續影響下一代的發展，才會去推動平權法案。

但是回過頭來看看台灣的情況，我們委實看不出有強制立法的必要性。台灣的所謂「本省」與「外省」族群並沒有如黑人、白人間的基因外顯特質，因此根本難以用肉眼區辨誰是哪一族群之人。此外，台灣不同省籍之間通婚普遍，數十年下來除非強翻族譜，否則也無從判斷族群背景，不但省籍難辨，連漢人與原住民之間都漸難區分。再者，台灣的教育水準高、民風淳厚，民間交往也鮮聞族群對立或歧視。因此，像郭冠英這樣的特例，頂多只是台灣文化演進的極少數，完全不影響社會整體的和諧平等走向。若要以不影響大局的特例去大張旗鼓制定一個法，我們認為實在沒有必要，反而可能把原本模糊的族群標記刻板化。

如果真要從郭冠英的不當言論中得到教訓、尋求改進，恐怕癥結在於政治人物、而非法律條文；在國會殿堂與競選活動、而非民間社會；在那些唯恐天下不亂的偏頗媒體名嘴、而非台灣人民之間的日常對話。簡言之，幾乎所有的族群摩擦都來自少數人的政治症候群。過去十年間，台灣社會出現「中國豬」、「保留強姦中國婦女的權利」的謬言，也出現此次郭冠英的「台巴子」、「歹丸」荒腔，其背後都有或統或獨的政治牽連。少數人主觀上將族群背景與統獨立場結合，就以族群偏狹的字句攻擊政治立場之異己；這正是今日台灣族群摩擦的源頭。

既然台灣族群之間融合迅速、民間社會和諧，只有極少數政治人物性喜興風作浪，那麼哪有必要治絲益棼，對族群言論另行立法呢？如果真要約束言論，那麼最該做約束的就是立法院紀律委員會。只要那些討厭的政治人物少造些口業，台灣社會的族群就自然平等。若要由這些造口業的政治人物制定一部「族群口業禁制法」，省省吧！

Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act

Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

The “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act” has remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan for a full year. Now suddenly, we hear it has been scheduled for consideration tomorrow. But whether it will actually become law remains uncertain.

Responsibility for failure to pass this law is rests with the KMT. The KMT is the largest party in the Legislature. It commands a supermajority. It is the ruling party. A simple law which ought to have been passed, hasn’t been passed. If the responsibility is not the KMT’s, whose is it?

Fine. If the KMT doesn’t want it to pass, so be it. But the year-end County and Municipal Elections are coming up. The electorate has ways of dealing with the KMT. Think about it. If centrist voters amounting to 10% of the electorate support the KMT’s opponents instead of the KMT, or stay away from the polls, they could conceivably cause the KMT to lose in every county and every municipality.

If the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act is not passed, we intend to remind the public to use their ballots to demand its passage come election day.

The Chen corruption and money-laundering case is a living example. Sacks of cash were piled high all over the Presidential Mansion. Yet the Chen family passes it off as “campaign contributions.” The Chen family picks a few names out of hundreds or even thousands of wealthy contributors, and creates its “Great Reservoir.” The Special Investigation Unit then subpoenas these alleged contributors one by one. Some of them admit having contributed money. But the vast majority deny having contributed money. Some of those who denied contributing money may have lied, But some may have contributed money to the Democratic Progressive Party, only to have it pocketed by the Chen family. Some may have been falsely accused by the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit should send questionnaires to both parties, asking them to answer according to their consciences. As long as the Chen family refuses to spit out the truth, as long as those who contributed funds refuse to admit doing so, existing laws are powerless against both. Without the sanctions provided by a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act,” how can one possibly ensure justice?

Forget big fish like the Chen family. Even the likes of Lin Wen-yuan could buy five luxury condominiums in a single breath. Lin’s payments were nearly 2 million dollars a month. When asked about the source of his financing, all he said was, “I financed it myself.” This apparently marked the end of the interrogation. Is this the Ma administration’s position on the law? Is this the KMT’s notion of criminal justice?

In fact, the draft law under consideration by the Legislative Yuan is toothless compared to the law in other regions. In Hong Kong for example, as long as a public official’s “lifestyle is inconsistent with his income” he risks conviction. Twelve years ago the Chinese mainland passed its “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act.” Recently, the National People’s Congress (NPC) increased the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Moreover, the draft law provisions currently in the Legislature would apply only in the event of suspected corruption. What excuse is there for not passing such a modest law? In the absence of a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act,” dark clouds will continue shroud the peaks. In which case, why bother talking about “Sunshine Laws”?

Such laws touch upon issues of presumption of innocence and self-incrimination. But this law applies only to powerful public officials. Besides, existing asset declaration laws and campaign contribution laws already provide public officials with the means to establish their innocence. Aren’t such crime-fighting mechanisms also a means of protecting oneself by establishing one’s innocence? Today’s society persecutes the virtuous and kowtows to the corrupt. Public officials suspected of corruption must account for their unexplained wealth. Costs should be weighed against the benefits. If laws are not passed today, tomorrow we will be confronted with more of the likes of Chen Shui-bian and Lin Wen-yuan.

The laws must include certain provisions. Campaign contribution laws must be updated. Running political parties and waging political campaigns are expensive propositions. Current limits on campaign contributions are so low as to be unrealistic. The limits should be substantially increased. We may wish to reduce the limits on contributions to individuals, while increasing the limits on contributions to political parties, Under certain circumstances we could allow political parties to collect a percentage from individual party members. This would support political parties while suppressing individual candidates. It would prevent cheating, and ensure fairness. We might even consider legal standards for the management of party assets. Having political parties operate openly would help prevent such abnormal phenomenon such as Chen Shu-bian becoming the biggest party operated corrupt enterprise.

In short, campaign contribution laws should be changed. Instead of strict limits with lax enforcement and punishment, we need generous limits with strict enforcement and punishment. Any violations would be subject to heavy penalties. The situation must not be allowed to degenerate into what we have today: contributors who deny having contributed, and recipients who cannot prove having received. A Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act would make such a farce impossible. By the same token, large and illegal campaign contributions would be punished according to a “Unaccounted For Large Contributions Act.”

The KMT may demonstrate indifference to calls for a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act.” But election day is here. Has it already forgotten the lesson of Miaoli?

用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.25 05:53 am


貪汙治罪條例增訂「公務員財產來源不明罪」，在立法院擱淺將屆一整年；據聞明天又將排定審議，但能否就此順利完成立法，仍在未定之天。

這筆帳必須算在國民黨頭上。國民黨是據有絕對多數的國會最大黨，又是執政黨；區區一個法條，該過而不過，這筆帳不找國民黨算該找誰？

沒關係，國民黨愛過不過隨便你。但隨著年底縣市長選舉接近，選民不是沒有對付國民黨的辦法。想像中，只要約有百分之十的中間選民，能因「財產來源不明罪」未立法，而從傾向支持國民黨改成支持其對手，或棄權不投票，這些中間選民一來一回，即可能教國民黨在任何縣市輸掉選舉！

倘若國民黨此番在立院再不完成立法程序，我們會為國人記得此事，將在選季開始後不斷用力提醒大家，用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」！

扁案是個活生生血淋淋的猙獰樣板。現金堆得「全厝間」，卻諉稱皆是「政治獻金」，然後再信手從可能上百逾千的金主中選擇性地交代幾個名字，來構築其「大水庫」……。特偵組於是就扁家拋出的名單一一傳訊，其中有些人承認，卻竟然絕大多數否認；否認者中有些可能說謊，卻也可能有捐給民進黨而被扁家私吞者，甚至不排除其中亦有被扁家誣指混充者。但是，特偵組所能做的，不啻猶如送一份調查問卷請兩造各憑良心打鉤鉤，只要扁家不吐實，送錢的不承認，依現行法律就對授受巨金的雙方無可奈何。如果不用「財產來源不明罪」制裁此類個案，正義寧論，公道何在？

不說扁家這個大咖，以林文淵的角色居然也能一口氣買下五棟豪宅，每月支付近二百萬元工程款；被問及資金來源，他只答覆一句「自行籌措」，好像就將問答畫下了最後句點。這是馬政府的法律觀點嗎？這是國民黨的社會正義嗎？

其實，立院正在審議的草案，較諸他國已甚保留。以香港為例，只要公務員的「收入與生活顯不相稱」，即可問罪；而中國大陸在十二年前即有「財產來源不明罪」，最近全國人大又將最高刑期從五年提高至十年。何況，立院的草案規定只在涉及貪汙罪嫌時，始可追究財產來源。如此謹慎保守的法條，還有什麼理由不立法？而若無「財產來源不明罪」，烏雲罩頂，還談什麼「陽光法案」？

當然，此法涉及「無罪推定」及「不自證有罪或無罪」等法理爭議。但畢竟本法是用於「特別權利關係」的公職人員，何況國家原即設有財產申報及政治獻金等法制，已提供公職人員自表清白、自我保護及阻卻犯罪的機制（豈不亦有自證無罪的用意？）。在肅貪倡廉的社會法益下，命涉及貪汙罪嫌的公職人員交代其不明財產的來源，在此時此地，應是符合比較利益與比例原則的。今天不立法，明天仍將有層出迭見的「陳水扁們」和「林文淵們」！

不過，在此也要提醒須完成配套措施，比如政治獻金法等亦應翻修。政黨及選舉運作皆是花大錢的事務，現在法定的獻金額度全然低得不切實際，應當大幅放寬限額；放寬限額後，且不妨相對縮限對個人的捐獻，提高對政黨的捐獻，且可在一定條件下規定政黨可對個別黨員所收獻金抽成。養政黨，抑個人；可以防弊，亦符公道。此外，甚至可考慮立法規範政黨經營「黨產」，公開正當操作，庶免形成陳水扁一人成為最大「黨營貪腐事業」的畸形異象。

總之，如政治獻金法等，應當從現在的「限制嚴，執法及懲罰輕」，改變成「限制寬，執法及懲罰重」；也就是對授受雙方皆要鬆綁，但違法即予重罰，絕不能鬧成如今這般收者說有、送者卻不敢認的荒唐景象。倘送者不認，收者又不能證實，那就涉嫌「財產來源不明罪」；同理，倘若出現違法巨量獻金，何妨亦以「違法巨量獻金動機不明罪」論處。

國民黨，你儘管無動於衷把「財產來源不明罪」擱著吧。選舉到了，苗栗的教訓你還記得嗎？

Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act

Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

The “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act” has remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan for a full year. Now suddenly, we hear it has been scheduled for consideration tomorrow. But whether it will actually become law remains uncertain.

Responsibility for failure to pass this law is rests with the KMT. The KMT is the largest party in the Legislature. It commands a supermajority. It is the ruling party. A simple law which ought to have been passed, hasn’t been passed. If the responsibility is not the KMT’s, whose is it?

Fine. If the KMT doesn’t want it to pass, so be it. But the year-end County and Municipal Elections are coming up. The electorate has ways of dealing with the KMT. Think about it. If centrist voters amounting to 10% of the electorate support the KMT’s opponents instead of the KMT, or stay away from the polls, they could conceivably cause the KMT to lose in every county and every municipality.

If the Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act is not passed, we intend to remind the public to use their ballots to demand its passage come election day.

The Chen corruption and money-laundering case is a living example. Sacks of cash were piled high all over the Presidential Mansion. Yet the Chen family passes it off as “campaign contributions.” The Chen family picks a few names out of hundreds or even thousands of wealthy contributors, and creates its “Great Reservoir.” The Special Investigation Unit then subpoenas these alleged contributors one by one. Some of them admit having contributed money. But the vast majority deny having contributed money. Some of those who denied contributing money may have lied, But some may have contributed money to the Democratic Progressive Party, only to have it pocketed by the Chen family. Some may have been falsely accused by the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit should send questionnaires to both parties, asking them to answer according to their consciences. As long as the Chen family refuses to spit out the truth, as long as those who contributed funds refuse to admit doing so, existing laws are powerless against both. Without the sanctions provided by a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act,” how can one possibly ensure justice?

Forget big fish like the Chen family. Even the likes of Lin Wen-yuan could buy five luxury condominiums in a single breath. Lin’s payments were nearly 2 million dollars a month. When asked about the source of his financing, all he said was, “I financed it myself.” This apparently marked the end of the interrogation. Is this the Ma administration’s position on the law? Is this the KMT’s notion of criminal justice?

In fact, the draft law under consideration by the Legislative Yuan is toothless compared to the law in other regions. In Hong Kong for example, as long as a public official’s “lifestyle is inconsistent with his income” he risks conviction. Twelve years ago the Chinese mainland passed its “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act.” Recently, the National People’s Congress (NPC) increased the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Moreover, the draft law provisions currently in the Legislature would apply only in the event of suspected corruption. What excuse is there for not passing such a modest law? In the absence of a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act,” dark clouds will continue shroud the peaks. In which case, why bother talking about “Sunshine Laws”?

Such laws touch upon issues of presumption of innocence and self-incrimination. But this law applies only to powerful public officials. Besides, existing asset declaration laws and campaign contribution laws already provide public officials with the means to establish their innocence. Aren’t such crime-fighting mechanisms also a means of protecting oneself by establishing one’s innocence? Today’s society persecutes the virtuous and kowtows to the corrupt. Public officials suspected of corruption must account for their unexplained wealth. Costs should be weighed against the benefits. If laws are not passed today, tomorrow we will be confronted with more of the likes of Chen Shui-bian and Lin Wen-yuan.

The laws must include certain provisions. Campaign contribution laws must be updated. Running political parties and waging political campaigns are expensive propositions. Current limits on campaign contributions are so low as to be unrealistic. The limits should be substantially increased. We may wish to reduce the limits on contributions to individuals, while increasing the limits on contributions to political parties, Under certain circumstances we could allow political parties to collect a percentage from individual party members. This would support political parties while suppressing individual candidates. It would prevent cheating, and ensure fairness. We might even consider legal standards for the management of party assets. Having political parties operate openly would help prevent such abnormal phenomenon such as Chen Shu-bian becoming the biggest party operated corrupt enterprise.

In short, campaign contribution laws should be changed. Instead of strict limits with lax enforcement and punishment, we need generous limits with strict enforcement and punishment. Any violations would be subject to heavy penalties. The situation must not be allowed to degenerate into what we have today: contributors who deny having contributed, and recipients who cannot prove having received. A Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act would make such a farce impossible. By the same token, large and illegal campaign contributions would be punished according to a “Unaccounted For Large Contributions Act.”

The KMT may demonstrate indifference to calls for a “Public Servants’ Unaccounted For Assets Act.” But election day is here. Has it already forgotten the lesson of Miaoli?

用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.25 05:53 am


貪汙治罪條例增訂「公務員財產來源不明罪」，在立法院擱淺將屆一整年；據聞明天又將排定審議，但能否就此順利完成立法，仍在未定之天。

這筆帳必須算在國民黨頭上。國民黨是據有絕對多數的國會最大黨，又是執政黨；區區一個法條，該過而不過，這筆帳不找國民黨算該找誰？

沒關係，國民黨愛過不過隨便你。但隨著年底縣市長選舉接近，選民不是沒有對付國民黨的辦法。想像中，只要約有百分之十的中間選民，能因「財產來源不明罪」未立法，而從傾向支持國民黨改成支持其對手，或棄權不投票，這些中間選民一來一回，即可能教國民黨在任何縣市輸掉選舉！

倘若國民黨此番在立院再不完成立法程序，我們會為國人記得此事，將在選季開始後不斷用力提醒大家，用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」！

扁案是個活生生血淋淋的猙獰樣板。現金堆得「全厝間」，卻諉稱皆是「政治獻金」，然後再信手從可能上百逾千的金主中選擇性地交代幾個名字，來構築其「大水庫」……。特偵組於是就扁家拋出的名單一一傳訊，其中有些人承認，卻竟然絕大多數否認；否認者中有些可能說謊，卻也可能有捐給民進黨而被扁家私吞者，甚至不排除其中亦有被扁家誣指混充者。但是，特偵組所能做的，不啻猶如送一份調查問卷請兩造各憑良心打鉤鉤，只要扁家不吐實，送錢的不承認，依現行法律就對授受巨金的雙方無可奈何。如果不用「財產來源不明罪」制裁此類個案，正義寧論，公道何在？

不說扁家這個大咖，以林文淵的角色居然也能一口氣買下五棟豪宅，每月支付近二百萬元工程款；被問及資金來源，他只答覆一句「自行籌措」，好像就將問答畫下了最後句點。這是馬政府的法律觀點嗎？這是國民黨的社會正義嗎？

其實，立院正在審議的草案，較諸他國已甚保留。以香港為例，只要公務員的「收入與生活顯不相稱」，即可問罪；而中國大陸在十二年前即有「財產來源不明罪」，最近全國人大又將最高刑期從五年提高至十年。何況，立院的草案規定只在涉及貪汙罪嫌時，始可追究財產來源。如此謹慎保守的法條，還有什麼理由不立法？而若無「財產來源不明罪」，烏雲罩頂，還談什麼「陽光法案」？

當然，此法涉及「無罪推定」及「不自證有罪或無罪」等法理爭議。但畢竟本法是用於「特別權利關係」的公職人員，何況國家原即設有財產申報及政治獻金等法制，已提供公職人員自表清白、自我保護及阻卻犯罪的機制（豈不亦有自證無罪的用意？）。在肅貪倡廉的社會法益下，命涉及貪汙罪嫌的公職人員交代其不明財產的來源，在此時此地，應是符合比較利益與比例原則的。今天不立法，明天仍將有層出迭見的「陳水扁們」和「林文淵們」！

不過，在此也要提醒須完成配套措施，比如政治獻金法等亦應翻修。政黨及選舉運作皆是花大錢的事務，現在法定的獻金額度全然低得不切實際，應當大幅放寬限額；放寬限額後，且不妨相對縮限對個人的捐獻，提高對政黨的捐獻，且可在一定條件下規定政黨可對個別黨員所收獻金抽成。養政黨，抑個人；可以防弊，亦符公道。此外，甚至可考慮立法規範政黨經營「黨產」，公開正當操作，庶免形成陳水扁一人成為最大「黨營貪腐事業」的畸形異象。

總之，如政治獻金法等，應當從現在的「限制嚴，執法及懲罰輕」，改變成「限制寬，執法及懲罰重」；也就是對授受雙方皆要鬆綁，但違法即予重罰，絕不能鬧成如今這般收者說有、送者卻不敢認的荒唐景象。倘送者不認，收者又不能證實，那就涉嫌「財產來源不明罪」；同理，倘若出現違法巨量獻金，何妨亦以「違法巨量獻金動機不明罪」論處。

國民黨，你儘管無動於衷把「財產來源不明罪」擱著吧。選舉到了，苗栗的教訓你還記得嗎？

Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian

Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2009

If someone were to tell you that Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui, and Chen Shui-bian have a lot in common, would you believe it?

First let’s look at Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui. Fan Lan Ching wrote an article dealing with 2/28, in which he argued on behalf of Chen Yi. He wrote, “Chen Yi was an upright official who cared for the people.” Lin Cho-shui, in his new book, “The Theater of History” wrote, “Chen Yi has long been the designated villain. Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian, and brutal, all rolled into one. Most people think he is the chief culprit behind the 2/28 Incident. But this is not Chen Yi’s true face. I found myself unable to go along with this view of him, and was surprised to find that Chen Yi and his administration were good officials seldom found in Chinese politics.” Lin Cho-shui agreed that “Chen Yi was extremely honest and never violated the law.’

Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui have different views on the overall significance of the 2/28 Incident of course. But the two men actually share many views about Chen Yi. Not every view, but some of the most important views. Lin Cho-shui said that after intensive reading and interviewing many respected elders, he was surprised to learn this. Fan Lan Ching probably knew all this. Lin Cho-shui and Fan Lan Ching, a.k.a. Kuo Kuan-ying, are about the same age. Both have conducted in-depth investigations of Taiwan’s politics and history. Yet both have arrived at the same conclusion about Chen Yi. Is that not surprising?

A proper evaluation of Chen Yi’s place in history is difficult. But how one perceives Chen Yi and 2/28 need not bear any relationship to whether one advocates Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence rhetoric distorts the meaning of 2/28 in order to justify independence. In order to distort the meaning of 2/28, Taiwan independence advocates attribute all manner of evil to Chen Yi. Lin Cho-shui wants to reverse this distorted assessment of Chen Yi. He wants to correct Taiwan independence advocates’ perception of 2/28. He says “2/28 was a predestined historical tragedy.” This is Fan Lan Ching/Kuo Kuan-ying’s view as well. He too considers 2/28 an “historically predetermined tragedy,” a legacy of the Opium War and the KMT vs. CCP Civil War.

Lin Cho-shui is the “Master Theoretician of the Taiwan independence Movement.” Yet decades later, he has made these surprising discoveries about Chen Yi. Alas, the Taiwan independence movement long ago decided to make Chen Yi the designated villain. It has used 2/28 as an excuse to divide society and the nation. Fan Lan Ching’s thinking is different because he has a different understanding of history. He does not think Chen Yi was so villainous. He does not think hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of people died during the incident. Fan made note of 800 mainlanders and 1000 Taiwanese killed or wounded. He also disagrees with the Taiwan independence movement’s spin on 2/28. Differing perceptions about the truth of 2/28 hardly end with Chen Yi.

Even more surprising is the fact that Chen Shui-bian shares many of the same views as Fan Lan Ching. Fan Lan Ching says the “Republic of China” is merely “Chinese territory occupied by the US.” He says “Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province. It has no existence. It is not a province, because the provincial government has been dissolved. Still less is it a nation. It is a mere apparition.” On the one hand, such arguments constitute opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, they sing the same tune as Taiwan independence. They too repudiate the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian denies that Taiwan is part of China. But he agrees with Fan Lan Ching when he says “What the hell is the Republic of China anyway?” and “The Republic of China is dead!” Their language is nearly identical. So why has Fan Lan Ching been removed from office, while Chen Shui-bian still enjoys the privileges of a former President?

Fan Lan Ching’s views regarding 2/28 have been characterized as “insults to Taiwan.” But if so, what are we to make of Lin Cho-shui’s nearly identical views? Furthermore, if we can change our view of Chen Yi, why can’t we change our view of 2/28? Why can’t we perceive 2/28 in the same light as Lin Cho-shui, as a “predestined historical tragedy?” If we make the 2/28 Incident a hostage to Taiwan independence mythology, we will never learn the truth about 2/28, and Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching will dog us forever.

For mid-level civil servant Kuo Kuan-ying to discuss state affairs in such terms under a pen name is indeed questionable. But it hardly compares with President Chen Shui-bian open declaration that “The Republic of China is dead!” Chen makes Fan look like a piker. Tit for tat. You want to destroy the Republic of China, and I will show no mercy towards Taiwan. Emotions run higher and higher. The language becomes more and more outrageous. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching are two mutually destructive extremes.

Fortunately, Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching constitute a tiny minority. Apart from the likes of Kuan Bi-ling, few people want to use the Fan Lan Ching incident as an excuse to take sides.

Most people hope that Taiwan and the Republic of China can coexist.

范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的略同所見
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.24 04:47 am

若說范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的見解有相同之處，你信不信？

先說范蘭欽與林濁水。范蘭欽有一篇文章論及二二八，為陳儀伸冤。他寫道：「實在陳儀是愛民清官。」林濁水則在他的新著《歷史劇場》中說：「陳儀在社會通論中長期以來也成為箭垛人物（即箭靶），集貪腐、無能、專制、殘暴於一身，一般人認為他是二二八的罪魁禍首……。但這不是陳儀的本來面目。……我發現我不能同意前述通論，並遽然心驚地發現陳儀和他的團隊在中國政界是不容易找到的好官。」林濁水並同意「陳儀本人非常清廉，絕不枉法」的說法。

范蘭欽與林濁水各自腦海中的「二二八全圖」當然不同。但二人對陳儀的「部分評價」竟然如此相同（不是全部，卻是最重要的部分），仍可令人驚異不置。林濁水說，他是在「傾力閱讀」並訪問耆宿後，始「遽然心驚」地有此發現；但是，對於范蘭欽而言，這或許卻是他早已建立的認知。林濁水與筆名范蘭欽的郭冠英年歲學歷相若，且皆對台灣政治及歷史探掘極深，但二人竟然會遲至今天始對陳儀出現相似的評價，豈能不令人也「遽然心驚」？

陳儀的歷史評價是一個難題。但陳儀的評價如何，與二二八的定論如何，或與應否主張台獨，其實並無必然關係；然而，如今的台獨論調，卻因為要主張台獨所以扭曲二二八，又因為要扭曲二二八所以將萬惡歸於陳儀。林濁水現在想從扭轉對陳儀的評價，來修正台獨人士對二二八的認知，並主張「二二八是一個歷史命定的悲劇」；這卻是「范蘭欽」郭冠英的一貫主張，亦即他也認為二二八是自鴉片戰爭至國共內戰的「歷史命定的悲劇」。

林濁水號稱是「台獨理論大師」，卻在數十年後始對陳儀有「遽然心驚的發現」；但台獨論述卻早已將陳儀定位鎖死當作箭靶，亦將二二八操作成撕裂族群、分裂國家的台獨圖騰；相對而言，「范蘭欽式思維」則可能因為有不同的史識史觀，例如不認為陳儀是那般不堪，亦不認為事件中有台獨所稱數十萬或數萬台灣人死難（范指外省人死傷八百，本省人死傷千餘人），而對台獨的二二八論述不能同意。何況，台灣社會對二二八「本來面目」的認知差異，又豈僅只在對陳儀的評價不同而已？

更令人「遽然心驚」的是，范蘭欽與陳水扁也有所見略同之處。范蘭欽指「中華民國」只是「靠美國占領了中國的一角」；他且說：「台灣只是中國叛離的一個省……其實根本沒有這個東西，她不是省，自廢了，更不是國，只是一個鬼島。」這樣的論調，一方面是反台獨的；但另一方面卻不啻與台獨同調，亦即也否定中華民國。陳水扁的台獨論述一直糾纏於「台灣是中國的一部分」，與「范蘭欽」同；更指「中華民國是什麼碗糕」、「中華民國已經滅亡」，這豈不也是「范蘭欽」的口吻？然而，范蘭欽已遭免職，而陳水扁迄今仍享受卸任總統禮遇。

范蘭欽對二二八的論述，被指為「辱台」，但要如何解釋林濁水為陳儀翻案？再者，如果對陳儀的評價可以調整，吾人對二二八的思考，有無可能也朝向林濁水所稱「歷史命定的悲劇」方向移動？否則，如果非要以後來的台獨論述挾持二二八的「本來面目」，不但二二八真相難現，且「陳水扁們」及「范蘭欽們」也將永遠存在。

中階公務員郭冠英用筆名以那類措詞來議論國是，確屬可議；但是，這與陳水扁以總統身分公然詛咒「中華民國已經滅亡」相較，卻是小巫見大巫。你來我往，你要摧毀「中華民國」，我就不放過「台灣」；情緒愈來愈敗壞，言語愈來愈離譜。冤冤相報，相激相盪，「陳水扁們」與「范蘭欽們」遂成了相互毀滅的兩個極端。

幸而，陳水扁們與范蘭欽們畢竟是兩個少數的極端。今天，除了管碧玲之類，已經很少人會藉此又要撕裂大家選邊站了！

多數國人皆希望：台灣和中華民國能一起好好活下去。

Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian

Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui and Chen Shui-bian
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 24, 2009

If someone were to tell you that Fan Lan Ching, Lin Cho-shui, and Chen Shui-bian have a lot in common, would you believe it?

First let’s look at Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui. Fan Lan Ching wrote an article dealing with 2/28, in which he argued on behalf of Chen Yi. He wrote, “Chen Yi was an upright official who cared for the people.” Lin Cho-shui, in his new book, “The Theater of History” wrote, “Chen Yi has long been the designated villain. Corrupt, incompetent, authoritarian, and brutal, all rolled into one. Most people think he is the chief culprit behind the 2/28 Incident. But this is not Chen Yi’s true face. I found myself unable to go along with this view of him, and was surprised to find that Chen Yi and his administration were good officials seldom found in Chinese politics.” Lin Cho-shui agreed that “Chen Yi was extremely honest and never violated the law.’

Fan Lan Ching and Lin Cho-shui have different views on the overall significance of the 2/28 Incident of course. But the two men actually share many views about Chen Yi. Not every view, but some of the most important views. Lin Cho-shui said that after intensive reading and interviewing many respected elders, he was surprised to learn this. Fan Lan Ching probably knew all this. Lin Cho-shui and Fan Lan Ching, a.k.a. Kuo Kuan-ying, are about the same age. Both have conducted in-depth investigations of Taiwan’s politics and history. Yet both have arrived at the same conclusion about Chen Yi. Is that not surprising?

A proper evaluation of Chen Yi’s place in history is difficult. But how one perceives Chen Yi and 2/28 need not bear any relationship to whether one advocates Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence rhetoric distorts the meaning of 2/28 in order to justify independence. In order to distort the meaning of 2/28, Taiwan independence advocates attribute all manner of evil to Chen Yi. Lin Cho-shui wants to reverse this distorted assessment of Chen Yi. He wants to correct Taiwan independence advocates’ perception of 2/28. He says “2/28 was a predestined historical tragedy.” This is Fan Lan Ching/Kuo Kuan-ying’s view as well. He too considers 2/28 an “historically predetermined tragedy,” a legacy of the Opium War and the KMT vs. CCP Civil War.

Lin Cho-shui is the “Master Theoretician of the Taiwan independence Movement.” Yet decades later, he has made these surprising discoveries about Chen Yi. Alas, the Taiwan independence movement long ago decided to make Chen Yi the designated villain. It has used 2/28 as an excuse to divide society and the nation. Fan Lan Ching’s thinking is different because he has a different understanding of history. He does not think Chen Yi was so villainous. He does not think hundreds of thousands or even tens of thousands of people died during the incident. Fan made note of 800 mainlanders and 1000 Taiwanese killed or wounded. He also disagrees with the Taiwan independence movement’s spin on 2/28. Differing perceptions about the truth of 2/28 hardly end with Chen Yi.

Even more surprising is the fact that Chen Shui-bian shares many of the same views as Fan Lan Ching. Fan Lan Ching says the “Republic of China” is merely “Chinese territory occupied by the US.” He says “Taiwan is a renegade Chinese province. It has no existence. It is not a province, because the provincial government has been dissolved. Still less is it a nation. It is a mere apparition.” On the one hand, such arguments constitute opposition to Taiwan independence. On the other hand, they sing the same tune as Taiwan independence. They too repudiate the Republic of China. Chen Shui-bian denies that Taiwan is part of China. But he agrees with Fan Lan Ching when he says “What the hell is the Republic of China anyway?” and “The Republic of China is dead!” Their language is nearly identical. So why has Fan Lan Ching been removed from office, while Chen Shui-bian still enjoys the privileges of a former President?

Fan Lan Ching’s views regarding 2/28 have been characterized as “insults to Taiwan.” But if so, what are we to make of Lin Cho-shui’s nearly identical views? Furthermore, if we can change our view of Chen Yi, why can’t we change our view of 2/28? Why can’t we perceive 2/28 in the same light as Lin Cho-shui, as a “predestined historical tragedy?” If we make the 2/28 Incident a hostage to Taiwan independence mythology, we will never learn the truth about 2/28, and Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching will dog us forever.

For mid-level civil servant Kuo Kuan-ying to discuss state affairs in such terms under a pen name is indeed questionable. But it hardly compares with President Chen Shui-bian open declaration that “The Republic of China is dead!” Chen makes Fan look like a piker. Tit for tat. You want to destroy the Republic of China, and I will show no mercy towards Taiwan. Emotions run higher and higher. The language becomes more and more outrageous. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching are two mutually destructive extremes.

Fortunately, Chen Shui-bian and Fan Lan Ching constitute a tiny minority. Apart from the likes of Kuan Bi-ling, few people want to use the Fan Lan Ching incident as an excuse to take sides.

Most people hope that Taiwan and the Republic of China can coexist.

范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的略同所見
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.24 04:47 am

若說范蘭欽、林濁水與陳水扁的見解有相同之處，你信不信？

先說范蘭欽與林濁水。范蘭欽有一篇文章論及二二八，為陳儀伸冤。他寫道：「實在陳儀是愛民清官。」林濁水則在他的新著《歷史劇場》中說：「陳儀在社會通論中長期以來也成為箭垛人物（即箭靶），集貪腐、無能、專制、殘暴於一身，一般人認為他是二二八的罪魁禍首……。但這不是陳儀的本來面目。……我發現我不能同意前述通論，並遽然心驚地發現陳儀和他的團隊在中國政界是不容易找到的好官。」林濁水並同意「陳儀本人非常清廉，絕不枉法」的說法。

范蘭欽與林濁水各自腦海中的「二二八全圖」當然不同。但二人對陳儀的「部分評價」竟然如此相同（不是全部，卻是最重要的部分），仍可令人驚異不置。林濁水說，他是在「傾力閱讀」並訪問耆宿後，始「遽然心驚」地有此發現；但是，對於范蘭欽而言，這或許卻是他早已建立的認知。林濁水與筆名范蘭欽的郭冠英年歲學歷相若，且皆對台灣政治及歷史探掘極深，但二人竟然會遲至今天始對陳儀出現相似的評價，豈能不令人也「遽然心驚」？

陳儀的歷史評價是一個難題。但陳儀的評價如何，與二二八的定論如何，或與應否主張台獨，其實並無必然關係；然而，如今的台獨論調，卻因為要主張台獨所以扭曲二二八，又因為要扭曲二二八所以將萬惡歸於陳儀。林濁水現在想從扭轉對陳儀的評價，來修正台獨人士對二二八的認知，並主張「二二八是一個歷史命定的悲劇」；這卻是「范蘭欽」郭冠英的一貫主張，亦即他也認為二二八是自鴉片戰爭至國共內戰的「歷史命定的悲劇」。

林濁水號稱是「台獨理論大師」，卻在數十年後始對陳儀有「遽然心驚的發現」；但台獨論述卻早已將陳儀定位鎖死當作箭靶，亦將二二八操作成撕裂族群、分裂國家的台獨圖騰；相對而言，「范蘭欽式思維」則可能因為有不同的史識史觀，例如不認為陳儀是那般不堪，亦不認為事件中有台獨所稱數十萬或數萬台灣人死難（范指外省人死傷八百，本省人死傷千餘人），而對台獨的二二八論述不能同意。何況，台灣社會對二二八「本來面目」的認知差異，又豈僅只在對陳儀的評價不同而已？

更令人「遽然心驚」的是，范蘭欽與陳水扁也有所見略同之處。范蘭欽指「中華民國」只是「靠美國占領了中國的一角」；他且說：「台灣只是中國叛離的一個省……其實根本沒有這個東西，她不是省，自廢了，更不是國，只是一個鬼島。」這樣的論調，一方面是反台獨的；但另一方面卻不啻與台獨同調，亦即也否定中華民國。陳水扁的台獨論述一直糾纏於「台灣是中國的一部分」，與「范蘭欽」同；更指「中華民國是什麼碗糕」、「中華民國已經滅亡」，這豈不也是「范蘭欽」的口吻？然而，范蘭欽已遭免職，而陳水扁迄今仍享受卸任總統禮遇。

范蘭欽對二二八的論述，被指為「辱台」，但要如何解釋林濁水為陳儀翻案？再者，如果對陳儀的評價可以調整，吾人對二二八的思考，有無可能也朝向林濁水所稱「歷史命定的悲劇」方向移動？否則，如果非要以後來的台獨論述挾持二二八的「本來面目」，不但二二八真相難現，且「陳水扁們」及「范蘭欽們」也將永遠存在。

中階公務員郭冠英用筆名以那類措詞來議論國是，確屬可議；但是，這與陳水扁以總統身分公然詛咒「中華民國已經滅亡」相較，卻是小巫見大巫。你來我往，你要摧毀「中華民國」，我就不放過「台灣」；情緒愈來愈敗壞，言語愈來愈離譜。冤冤相報，相激相盪，「陳水扁們」與「范蘭欽們」遂成了相互毀滅的兩個極端。

幸而，陳水扁們與范蘭欽們畢竟是兩個少數的極端。今天，除了管碧玲之類，已經很少人會藉此又要撕裂大家選邊站了！

多數國人皆希望：台灣和中華民國能一起好好活下去。