Confronting New Strains of Influenza

Confronting New Strains of Influenza
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 30, 2009

In April 2009, the world was just beginning to recover from the havoc wreaked by the financial tsunami. US President Barack Obama confidently declared that signs of an economic recovery were already evident. Who knew another storm was already brewing? The World Health Organization (WHO) upgraded the epidemic caused by the H1N1 virus, a “new type of influenza,” to a Level Four Alert. This may be revised at any time to a Level Five Alert. Many nations, including the Republic of China, have begun working to prevent a repeat of the panic and harm caused In 2003 by SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).

At the same time, we have good news. This year, 12 years later, the Republic of China government will finally acquire observer status under the name “Chinese Taipei.” On May 18 it will participate in the World Health Assembly (WHA). Some people consider WHA observer status under the name “Chinese Taipei” unsatisfactory. They compare it to World Trade Organization (WTO) membership under the name “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu Customs Territory.” But this is nevertheless an important step in the Republic of China government’s return to the international community. Especially since this new type of influenza may touch off international concerns. Taipei has been invited to the meeting. It has been presented with the opportunity to join the international dialogue on public health and the cross-border health cooperation program led by the World Health Organization (WHO). This will provide Taipei with valuable experience in public health surveillance and the prevention of enterovirus infections and Influenza epidemics. For Taipei, participation in WHA is an important breakthrough.

Participation in international organizations is one thing. But disaster prevention efforsts must not be taken lightly. A new outbreak of influenza caused by a four-year-old boy’s illness on a pig farm near the US-Mexican border appears random, like the outbreak of SARS in 2003. On February 26, 2003, an American businessman who fell ill in Hanoi and was hospitalized in Hong Kong, died. This was the prelude to SARS, known as the 21st Century plague. Soon afterwards, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Vietnam, and other Asian regions reported cases of SARS.

The first SARS cases were discovered in March. Initially, health authorities believed the epidemic was under control. But in April Heping Hospital experienced a massive outbreak. Patients, health care workers, and nursing personnel were all infected. This was Taiwan’s first mass infection of SARS. The public experienced widespread panic and confusion. The government classified it as a fourth category of SARS Notifiable Diseases. For the first time since 1949, hospitals, streets, and buildings were quarantined. Both the central government Director of Health and the Taipei City Director of Health were forced to step down. The “anti-SARS hero” at the time, the man who on his own initiative entered the already quarantined Heping Hospital and took command, is today’s Director of Health Yeh Chin-chuan.

SARS reminded many people of what well-known sociologist Ulrich Beck calls the “risk society.” Society treats individuals as units. But modern risk is globalized (Glocal Risk). Individual behavior has collective consequences. Many people believe that one reason the SARS epidemic got out of control was that the Beijing government covered it up during its outset. The global community means constant interaction. Public health is an issue that requires everyone’s participation. Any one nation or region’s negligence may lead to unpredictable and unfortunate consequences. On Taiwan, SARS screening and isolation measures led to widespread public discussion of ethical issues. For example, a high school student quarantined at home violated quarantine to attend a cram school class. This created a hole in the quarantine system, and widespread criticism that the high school student had “absolutely no sense of public spirit.” Some Heping Hospital medical staff refused to go back to work. Then Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou had some harsh words for them. He said fighting SARS was akin to waging war. If health care workers refuse to work, it is akin to cowardice in the face of the enemy. He would punish them according to the “Infectious Diseases Prevention Law,” and seek administrative accountability.

The SARS epidemic taught Taiwan valuable lessons about collective risk, personal responsibility, and medical ethics. The fight against SARS also helped established standard operating procedures. Three and a half months after SARS erupted on Taiwan, WHO announced Taiwan’s removal from its list of SARS infected areas. During this period, 664 were infected and 73 died. Approximately 110,000 were quarantine at home. Three in ten thousand returning to Taiwan from infected areas became infected. Twelve in ten thousand who came in contact with them became infected. The incidence of SARS on Taiwan was low. But the risk of death among those infected was high.

During that period, Taipei’s application for WHA observer status was rejected. Six years later, a new type of influenza led to 160 deaths in nine countries. Asia already has its first confirmed cases, in South Korea. Will it cause a global pandemic? Everyone is concerned. In addition to public health security issues, scholarly studies reveal that the economic damage caused by the epidemic on Taiwan caused a drop in consumption of over 200 billion NT. Excluding the cost of fighting SARS, the financial losses amounted to 16 billion NT. Will the new type of influenza have a similar impact on a still recovering economy? The nations of the world must work together to survive the economic and social impact of the disease. During the SARS crisis, US Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said pandemics remind us that public health knows no borders and is not a political issue. Without a global public health cooperation mechanism, we will not be able to control such diseases.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.30
社論－以萬全準備迎接新流感挑戰
本報訊

二 ○○九年四月，這個世界剛剛開始要從金融海嘯的肆虐中回神過來、準備迎接美國總統歐巴馬的信心喊話：「景氣已看到復甦的契機。」沒想到新風暴又成形，世界衛生組織（ＷＨＯ）已將因Ｈ１Ｎ１病毒感染所造成的「新型流感」升級為第四級警戒，並且隨時可能上修為大量流行的第五級警戒。包括台灣在內，各國已紛紛投入防疫工作，以免二○○三年ＳＡＲＳ（嚴重急性呼吸道症候群）恐慌與傷害再現。

與此同時，台灣接獲一樁好消息。叩關十二年後，台灣終於在今年以「中華台北」名義的觀察員身分，參加五月十八日舉行的「世界衛生大會」（ＷＨＡ）。或許對某些想比照世界貿易組織（ＷＴＯ）「台澎金馬關稅領域」會籍名稱的人來說，ＷＨＡ觀察員「中華台北」這個名稱不盡如人意，但是這畢竟是台灣重返國際社會所跨出的重要一步；特別是在這次新型流感可能引爆國際流行的隱憂之際，台灣此時獲邀與會，不但有機會加入國際公衛對話，參與世界衛生組織（ＷＨＯ）主導的跨國醫衛合作計畫，台灣更能在腸病毒、流感疫情監控等公共衛生及疾病預防上，提供寶貴的經驗，因此參與ＷＨＡ堪稱近年來台灣的一項重要突破。

能夠參與國際組織是一回事，但防疫抗災的努力更不可掉以輕心。這次從美墨邊境一家豬隻養殖場裡的四歲小男童生病所引發的新流感，彷彿出於一個看似輕微的偶然，一如二○○三年的ＳＡＲＳ。二○○三年二月二十六日，越南河內一位美商發病送至香港就醫後，不幸死亡，揭開了ＳＡＲＳ這個被稱為是二十一世紀人類第一場流行瘟疫的序幕；之後香港、中國大陸、越南等亞洲國家紛紛傳出了ＳＡＲＳ病例。

記得當時三月間發現第一個ＳＡＲＳ病例，起初衛生主管機關還認為疫情在控制中；四月就爆發和平醫院集體感染，病患、看護工、醫護人員先後發病，這個台灣第一次發生的ＳＡＲＳ集體感染，讓台灣進入了集體恐慌，社會氣氛大亂。政府宣布將ＳＡＲＳ列入為第四類法定傳染病，並創下自一九四九年以來，首度封院（醫院）、封街封樓、院外發燒篩檢的景況；中央和台北市的衛生首長雙雙下台。當時主動進入已遭封院的和平醫院指揮大局「抗煞英雄」就是今天的衛生署長葉金川。

ＳＡＲＳ讓很多人深刻體認到著名的社會學家貝克（Ulrich Beck）所一再提醒的「風險社會」特質：社會看似以「個人」為單位，但現代風險卻已展現出一種全球在地化的趨勢（Glocal Risk），個別行為具有集體的影響力。很多人相信，ＳＡＲＳ疫情之所以會一發不可拾，原因之一是中國大陸一開始隱瞞疫情；對交流頻繁的國際社會而言，公衛是「一個都不能少」風險連動課題，任何一個國家、地區的疏忽，都可能造成難以估計的不幸後果；而在台灣，ＳＡＲＳ的篩檢與隔離措施，也引發了公共倫理議題的高度討論，例如，某位被居家隔離的高中生跑去補習，造成防疫漏洞，引發各界責難，認為這名高中生「完全沒有公共道德意識」；此外，當時和平醫院有醫護人員不願意返回醫院工作，進行抗爭，時任台北市長的馬英九特別說了重話，強調抗煞視同作戰，醫護人員如有抗爭，即視同敵前抗命，將依《傳染病防治法》懲處，並追究行政責任。

在ＳＡＲＳ流行期間，在有關集體風險中個人的道德倫理與醫療專業等議題上，台灣上了寶貴的一課，也建立了抗煞的ＳＯＰ（標準作業模式），ＳＡＲＳ病例在台灣出現的三個半月後，ＷＨＯ宣布台灣從ＳＡＲＳ感染區除名。在此期間，台灣共有六六四個病例，其中七十三人死亡；居家隔離者共有十一萬人左右，由疫區返台者的發病率為○○三％（一萬人有三人），接觸者則有○一二％發病；ＳＡＲＳ在台灣可以說是一種獲病比例低，但是死亡風險高的疾病。

那段期間，台灣也曾申請成為ＷＨＡ觀察員未成。六年後，新型流感已在九國家造成一六○例死亡，亞洲也已在韓國出現第一起確定病例，是否會進一步造成全球大流行，世人極為憂慮；除了公共衛生安全的問題之外，從ＳＡＲＳ的經驗看來，疫情還會造成經濟損害，以台灣為例，學者研究，ＳＡＲＳ期間，台灣的消費減少了二百餘億元，不計抗煞經費，財務損失約為一六○億元，新型流感是否會對尚未恢復元氣的經濟造成新的打擊，同樣令人關切。總之，無論是疫情本身或者經濟、社會層面，各國必須通力合作才有可能度過這場猛烈的疫情危機。一如ＳＡＲＳ期間，美國衛生部長湯普森強調的：疫情讓世人警惕到，公共衛生是沒有國界的，也是非政治性的，若沒有全球公共衛生合作的機制，就無法控制疾病。

The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides

The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2009

Summary: The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of “economics before politics.” They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

Full Text below:

The third Chiang/Chen Summit has successfully adjourned. The two sides signed agreements covering regularly scheduled cross-Strait air flights, financial cooperation, and anti-crime measures. They also achieved consensus on Mainland investments on Taiwan. According to the latest newspaper poll 53% of the public is in favor of allowing Mainland investments on Taiwan. Public satisfaction with President Ma Ying-jeou’s policies rose slightly, to 45%. Public satisfaction with the Ma administration’s cross-Strait policies rose to 49%. This shows that since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, its emphasis on cross-Strait exchanges are beginning to pay off, and have met with public approval.

Public opinion diverged considerably on whether the third Chiang/Chen Summit was convened on a peer-to-peer basis, and whether it undermined the Republic of China’s sovereignty. Thirty-five percent felt it did not undermine our sovereignty. Another 35% felt it did undermine our sovereignty. Approximately 30% had no opinion. Compared to the second Chiang/Chen Summit, the proportion that felt it undermined our sovereignty increased. The proportion that felt it did not undermine our sovereignty declined. The poll figures explain to some extent why the opposition DPP invariably resorts to criticism of the Ma administration as the basis of its cross-Strait policy. Because by doing so it need not put forth any concrete data or evidence. One-third of the public will always oppose cross-Strait exchanges.

For the Ma administration this is a poll number about which it must remain vigilant. Ever since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, it has been unable to open a window of dialogue with opposition party leaders. Will the “two Yings” (Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen) meet? Every time the question is raised the two sides end up shouting at each from a distance. They never make real progress. Society desperately needs a consensus on cross-Strait policy. But without the participation of the opposition DPP, the public will remain divided between Blue and Green. The fracture between the two parties will never be healed. A democratic society should accomodate different views. Opinions both pro and con should be heard. Only then can we arrive at the broadest possible consensus. Only then can the policies implemented maintain social harmony. Those in authority must bear the greatest responsibilty and expend the greatest effort.

The Democratic Progressive Party is the largest opposition party. It must not ignore reality. It must not be content to embrace 30% of the public. It must not be content to bask in the approval of a minority. It must not be content to succumb to the pressure exerted by that minority. It must not Ignore the demands of the majority. Otherwise we will never be able to achieve a consensus among the majority. After all, if the DPP wishes to once again assume office, it can hardly rely on the support of only 30% of the public.

The Democratic Progressive Party is asking the public to take to the streets on May 17 to protest the Ma administration. This is understandable. But what connection is there between combating unemployment and accusing the Ma administration of undermining our sovereignty? DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen’s harshest criticism is that the extension requested by the opposition DPP was “never even touched upon.” Therefore they consider the Chiang/Chen Summit a total failure. Tsai Ing-wen was once Chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan. During her term she rejected any and all calls for cross-Strait negotiations. Perhaps she does not understand. Just because the opposition DPP tosses out an issue prior to negotiations, that does not mean the ruling administration must discuss it or successfully negotiate it. Ma Ying-jeou also expressed a desire for an extension prior to the Chiang/Chen Summit. But the Ma administration has been in office less than a year. The institutionalization of the two sides’ proxies, the SEF and the ARATS, appears to be on track. During the three years remaining in the Ma administration’s first term, it will surely have a chance to raise this issue of such concern to the opposition DPP. The only question is, when the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party still consider this a “significant advance” in cross-Strait relations and policy?

Chen Po-chih was a Chairman of the CEPD and a Chairman of the Taiwan Think Tank under the DPP administration. Chen offered an even-handed evaluation of the Chiang/Chen Summit. He said it was good that they only signed a broad financial cooperation agreement, not a memorandum of understanding. He said “It must be properly laid out before signing.” According to the Ma administration, a memorandum of understanding will be signed in about two months. Most important of all, the signing will be completed by officials from the two sides in direct, face-to-face talks, rather than through proxies. This amounts to significant progress in the negotiation process.

In fact, in less than a year, the three Chiang/Chen Summits have already established a precedent for cross-Strait talks. The three agreements signed this time were all finalized after secret talks by senior officials from the two sides, and signed by officials of MAC and ARATS. The Chiang/Chen Summits in Taipei and Nanjing signed cross-Strait airline services agreements and supplemental agreements. They incorporated the terms “the two sides” into the text. Their structure and content followed the same model many nations use for bilateral agreements. The cross-Strait joint anti-crime and mutual legal assistance agreement avoided the use of the term “extradition treaty.” But it too applied all the relevant legal norms, further confirming cross-Strait cooperation among criminal investigation agencies. It too involved a giant step forward.

The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of “economics before politics.” They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.29
社論－兩黨距離不應大於兩岸距離
本報訊

三次江陳會順利落幕，兩岸簽署包括定期航班、金融合作、共同打擊犯罪等三項協議，以及開放陸資來台的一項共識。根據本報最新民調顯示，有五成三的民眾贊成陸資來台，而馬英九總統的施政滿意度微幅上揚到四成五，至於民眾對馬政府的兩岸政策滿意度則達到四成九。顯示馬政府就任近一年來，以兩岸交流為主軸的施政漸獲成果，也得到民意的認可。

但值得注意的是，對於三次江陳會是否符合對等協商、是否傷害台灣主權，民眾看法相當紛歧，認為無損主權者有三成五，認為損及主權者也有三成五，沒意見的也達到三成左右。對比二次江陳會，認為損及主權者比例上升，認為未損及主權者比例卻下降，這個民調數字，某種程度可說明，為什麼在野黨始終可以負面批評馬政府的任何兩岸政策作為，因為不必提出什麼實際數據或事證，總會有三分之一的民意反對兩岸交流。

對馬政府而言，這是一個必須時時自我警惕的民調數字，馬政府自就任以來近一年時間，始終無法與在野黨領袖有正常對話的窗口，雙英為了見不見面、辯不辯論總是隔空喊話，卻無實質進展，最需要社會最大共識的兩岸政策，因此失去取得在野黨的參與，民意依舊陷入藍綠壁壘之爭，對立裂痕無法有效撫平。民主社會本來就有贊成與反對的不同意見，正反兩方的民意都要傾聽，並從中取得最大的共識，才能在施政的同時，維繫社會的和諧，這一點無論如何執政者要負較大的責任，盡更多心力。

對最大在野黨的民進黨而言，同樣不能枉顧現實，慣性地擁抱三成民意自得自滿，耽溺於少數民意的喝采和壓力，忽視社會真正多數的聲音和需求，否則就永遠不可能取得多數中間選民的認可，畢竟重返執政之途不可能僅僅依賴三成民意。

民進黨為了嗆馬，號召民眾五一七上街頭，可以理解，但是，從救失業到嗆馬談判失了主權，就有點莫名其妙了。民進黨主席蔡英文批評力度最大的是：在野要求的延遠權「碰都沒碰」，江陳會談判完全失敗，蔡英文曾任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，在她任內拒絕任何兩岸政策談判協商的可能，或許因此不理解任何談判都不是在野黨突如其來在談判出發前拋出一個議題，就非談不可，遑論非談成不可。馬英九在江陳會行前也曾表達延遠權確要爭取，但馬政府就任不滿一年，以兩岸兩會制度化協商愈來愈上軌道的情況看來，至少在馬政府第一任的未來三年多時間中，總會有機會將這個在野黨最在乎的議題端上檯面，就不知道屆時民進黨會不會認為這是兩岸關係和政策的「重大進展」？

曾任民進黨政府經建會主委的台灣智庫董事長陳博志持平地評價這次江陳會，他說，只簽一個「籠統」的金融合作協議，沒簽ＭＯＵ，這是好的，「本來就該規畫完善才能簽。」根據馬政府的規畫，ＭＯＵ大概兩個月後就能簽成，最重要的，接下來的簽署工作將由兩岸官方機構直接面對面商談，而不再透過兩會白手套代行，這當然是對等談判的重大進展。

事實上，一年不到時間中，三次江陳會已經讓兩岸官員上桌形成「慣例」。以這次會談簽署的三項協議，無一不是兩岸主管官員密商敲定文稿後，再由兩會人員簽署。台北與南京兩次江陳會的兩岸航空協議和補充協議，除了冠之以「兩岸」的文字，其架構和內涵均等同於各國簽署雙邊協定的模式；至於兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議及司法互助協議，唯未到援用「引渡條約」的法律用詞，卻也套用相關法律規範，且進一步確認了兩岸司法調查單位的合作，同是邁出了一大步。

兩岸分隔六十年，自廿年前開放交流後，兩岸關係有潛礁、有暗流，但潮流趨勢不可逆，兩岸不可能再回到那個彼此封鎖、敵意相抗的年代，兩岸既已取得「先經濟後政治」的共識，擱下政治爭議，以民眾利益為優先考量，政府責無旁貸，寄望有過八年執政經驗的反對黨，同樣回歸台灣優先、民利為重的初衷，正視現實、回應民意。

The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides

The Two Parties Should Not be Farther Apart than the Two Sides
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 29, 2009

Summary: The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of “economics before politics.” They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

Full Text below:

The third Chiang/Chen Summit has successfully adjourned. The two sides signed agreements covering regularly scheduled cross-Strait air flights, financial cooperation, and anti-crime measures. They also achieved consensus on Mainland investments on Taiwan. According to the latest newspaper poll 53% of the public is in favor of allowing Mainland investments on Taiwan. Public satisfaction with President Ma Ying-jeou’s policies rose slightly, to 45%. Public satisfaction with the Ma administration’s cross-Strait policies rose to 49%. This shows that since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, its emphasis on cross-Strait exchanges are beginning to pay off, and have met with public approval.

Public opinion diverged considerably on whether the third Chiang/Chen Summit was convened on a peer-to-peer basis, and whether it undermined the Republic of China’s sovereignty. Thirty-five percent felt it did not undermine our sovereignty. Another 35% felt it did undermine our sovereignty. Approximately 30% had no opinion. Compared to the second Chiang/Chen Summit, the proportion that felt it undermined our sovereignty increased. The proportion that felt it did not undermine our sovereignty declined. The poll figures explain to some extent why the opposition DPP invariably resorts to criticism of the Ma administration as the basis of its cross-Strait policy. Because by doing so it need not put forth any concrete data or evidence. One-third of the public will always oppose cross-Strait exchanges.

For the Ma administration this is a poll number about which it must remain vigilant. Ever since the Ma administration took office nearly a year ago, it has been unable to open a window of dialogue with opposition party leaders. Will the “two Yings” (Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen) meet? Every time the question is raised the two sides end up shouting at each from a distance. They never make real progress. Society desperately needs a consensus on cross-Strait policy. But without the participation of the opposition DPP, the public will remain divided between Blue and Green. The fracture between the two parties will never be healed. A democratic society should accomodate different views. Opinions both pro and con should be heard. Only then can we arrive at the broadest possible consensus. Only then can the policies implemented maintain social harmony. Those in authority must bear the greatest responsibilty and expend the greatest effort.

The Democratic Progressive Party is the largest opposition party. It must not ignore reality. It must not be content to embrace 30% of the public. It must not be content to bask in the approval of a minority. It must not be content to succumb to the pressure exerted by that minority. It must not Ignore the demands of the majority. Otherwise we will never be able to achieve a consensus among the majority. After all, if the DPP wishes to once again assume office, it can hardly rely on the support of only 30% of the public.

The Democratic Progressive Party is asking the public to take to the streets on May 17 to protest the Ma administration. This is understandable. But what connection is there between combating unemployment and accusing the Ma administration of undermining our sovereignty? DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen’s harshest criticism is that the extension requested by the opposition DPP was “never even touched upon.” Therefore they consider the Chiang/Chen Summit a total failure. Tsai Ing-wen was once Chairperson of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Vice-President of the Executive Yuan. During her term she rejected any and all calls for cross-Strait negotiations. Perhaps she does not understand. Just because the opposition DPP tosses out an issue prior to negotiations, that does not mean the ruling administration must discuss it or successfully negotiate it. Ma Ying-jeou also expressed a desire for an extension prior to the Chiang/Chen Summit. But the Ma administration has been in office less than a year. The institutionalization of the two sides’ proxies, the SEF and the ARATS, appears to be on track. During the three years remaining in the Ma administration’s first term, it will surely have a chance to raise this issue of such concern to the opposition DPP. The only question is, when the time comes, will the Democratic Progressive Party still consider this a “significant advance” in cross-Strait relations and policy?

Chen Po-chih was a Chairman of the CEPD and a Chairman of the Taiwan Think Tank under the DPP administration. Chen offered an even-handed evaluation of the Chiang/Chen Summit. He said it was good that they only signed a broad financial cooperation agreement, not a memorandum of understanding. He said “It must be properly laid out before signing.” According to the Ma administration, a memorandum of understanding will be signed in about two months. Most important of all, the signing will be completed by officials from the two sides in direct, face-to-face talks, rather than through proxies. This amounts to significant progress in the negotiation process.

In fact, in less than a year, the three Chiang/Chen Summits have already established a precedent for cross-Strait talks. The three agreements signed this time were all finalized after secret talks by senior officials from the two sides, and signed by officials of MAC and ARATS. The Chiang/Chen Summits in Taipei and Nanjing signed cross-Strait airline services agreements and supplemental agreements. They incorporated the terms “the two sides” into the text. Their structure and content followed the same model many nations use for bilateral agreements. The cross-Strait joint anti-crime and mutual legal assistance agreement avoided the use of the term “extradition treaty.” But it too applied all the relevant legal norms, further confirming cross-Strait cooperation among criminal investigation agencies. It too involved a giant step forward.

The two sides have been separated for 60 years. Over the past 20 years, ever since the opening of cross-Strait exchanges, cross-Strait relations have encountered unforseen difficulties and unfavorable currents. But the larger trend is irreversible. The two sides can no longer return to an era of standoff and hostility. The two sides have arrived at a consensus of “economics before politics.” They have set aside political disputes. They have made the public interest their first priority. The government must act responsibly. The opposition DPP had eight years of experience in office. We hope it will put the interests of Taiwan first. We hope it will put the people first. We hope it will face up to reality and respond to the will of the people.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.29
社論－兩黨距離不應大於兩岸距離
本報訊

三次江陳會順利落幕，兩岸簽署包括定期航班、金融合作、共同打擊犯罪等三項協議，以及開放陸資來台的一項共識。根據本報最新民調顯示，有五成三的民眾贊成陸資來台，而馬英九總統的施政滿意度微幅上揚到四成五，至於民眾對馬政府的兩岸政策滿意度則達到四成九。顯示馬政府就任近一年來，以兩岸交流為主軸的施政漸獲成果，也得到民意的認可。

但值得注意的是，對於三次江陳會是否符合對等協商、是否傷害台灣主權，民眾看法相當紛歧，認為無損主權者有三成五，認為損及主權者也有三成五，沒意見的也達到三成左右。對比二次江陳會，認為損及主權者比例上升，認為未損及主權者比例卻下降，這個民調數字，某種程度可說明，為什麼在野黨始終可以負面批評馬政府的任何兩岸政策作為，因為不必提出什麼實際數據或事證，總會有三分之一的民意反對兩岸交流。

對馬政府而言，這是一個必須時時自我警惕的民調數字，馬政府自就任以來近一年時間，始終無法與在野黨領袖有正常對話的窗口，雙英為了見不見面、辯不辯論總是隔空喊話，卻無實質進展，最需要社會最大共識的兩岸政策，因此失去取得在野黨的參與，民意依舊陷入藍綠壁壘之爭，對立裂痕無法有效撫平。民主社會本來就有贊成與反對的不同意見，正反兩方的民意都要傾聽，並從中取得最大的共識，才能在施政的同時，維繫社會的和諧，這一點無論如何執政者要負較大的責任，盡更多心力。

對最大在野黨的民進黨而言，同樣不能枉顧現實，慣性地擁抱三成民意自得自滿，耽溺於少數民意的喝采和壓力，忽視社會真正多數的聲音和需求，否則就永遠不可能取得多數中間選民的認可，畢竟重返執政之途不可能僅僅依賴三成民意。

民進黨為了嗆馬，號召民眾五一七上街頭，可以理解，但是，從救失業到嗆馬談判失了主權，就有點莫名其妙了。民進黨主席蔡英文批評力度最大的是：在野要求的延遠權「碰都沒碰」，江陳會談判完全失敗，蔡英文曾任陸委會主委、行政院副院長，在她任內拒絕任何兩岸政策談判協商的可能，或許因此不理解任何談判都不是在野黨突如其來在談判出發前拋出一個議題，就非談不可，遑論非談成不可。馬英九在江陳會行前也曾表達延遠權確要爭取，但馬政府就任不滿一年，以兩岸兩會制度化協商愈來愈上軌道的情況看來，至少在馬政府第一任的未來三年多時間中，總會有機會將這個在野黨最在乎的議題端上檯面，就不知道屆時民進黨會不會認為這是兩岸關係和政策的「重大進展」？

曾任民進黨政府經建會主委的台灣智庫董事長陳博志持平地評價這次江陳會，他說，只簽一個「籠統」的金融合作協議，沒簽ＭＯＵ，這是好的，「本來就該規畫完善才能簽。」根據馬政府的規畫，ＭＯＵ大概兩個月後就能簽成，最重要的，接下來的簽署工作將由兩岸官方機構直接面對面商談，而不再透過兩會白手套代行，這當然是對等談判的重大進展。

事實上，一年不到時間中，三次江陳會已經讓兩岸官員上桌形成「慣例」。以這次會談簽署的三項協議，無一不是兩岸主管官員密商敲定文稿後，再由兩會人員簽署。台北與南京兩次江陳會的兩岸航空協議和補充協議，除了冠之以「兩岸」的文字，其架構和內涵均等同於各國簽署雙邊協定的模式；至於兩岸共同打擊犯罪協議及司法互助協議，唯未到援用「引渡條約」的法律用詞，卻也套用相關法律規範，且進一步確認了兩岸司法調查單位的合作，同是邁出了一大步。

兩岸分隔六十年，自廿年前開放交流後，兩岸關係有潛礁、有暗流，但潮流趨勢不可逆，兩岸不可能再回到那個彼此封鎖、敵意相抗的年代，兩岸既已取得「先經濟後政治」的共識，擱下政治爭議，以民眾利益為優先考量，政府責無旁貸，寄望有過八年執政經驗的反對黨，同樣回歸台灣優先、民利為重的初衷，正視現實、回應民意。

Mainland Tourists are not Passersby

Mainland Tourists are not Passersby
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2009

As predicted, problems have arisen as the number of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan has rapidly increased. Taiwan’s tourism industry is clearly inadequate in both quantity and quality. More importantly, the government and the tourism industry must disabuse themselves of the myth of quantifiable business opportunities. Only then will Taiwan’s tourism industry be able to make something of itself.

The government has been promoting mainland tourism on based on how long a mainland tourist stays on Taiwan and how much he spends each day. The total purportedly constitutes the increase in tourist revenue, the amount of foreign exchange earned, and the employment opportunities created. The government uses statistics to calculate the effectiveness of its policies. These calculations reveal the government and the tourism industry’s mindset. Because the mainland has a population of 1.3 billion, local tour operators have treated mainland tourists not as Taiwan’s guests. Instead they have myopically viewed each mainland tourist as a one-time business opportunity. They have viewed mainland tourists as passersby. That is why problems with mainland tourists have rapidly increased.

One. One mainland tour group’s visa applications were not correctly filed. Without an entry permit the entire tour group was forced to return on the same plane. This revealed communication problems between the two sides. Two. Some tour groups overbooked, then found themselves unable to provide enough tour buses, forcing tourists to wait at the airport. Three. More and more tour guides complain that the three must-see tourist destinations for mainland tourists have problems. The dining facilities at Alishan require standing in line. The National Palace Museum has turned into a farm market. Sun Moon Lake is now littered with trash. All these circumstances were predictable, but we have yet to see any attempt to improve the situation. In particular, price competition within the industry, including below cost price wars, kickbacks from shops, a reduction in the number of tourist attractions, and changing modes of transportation to reduce costs, have led to a decline in the quality of tourism.

The other side is allowing the mainland public to visit Taiwan. Naturally it has political motives. But it also constitutes a show of goodwill. It hopes that interaction between the two sides will reach from top to bottom, via non-governmental exchanges. It hopes to expand contacts to enhance mutual understanding. It hopes to eliminate misunderstanding and hostility. Yet when we encounter mainland tourists on Taiwan, all we see is dollar signs. This fails to make the best use of the opportunity. Worse, it allows mainland vistors to see that Taiwan lacks even a rudimentary understanding of hospitality. The minimal standards Taiwan’s tourism industry require have been lost during the quantification of business opportunities.

The tourism industry must not merely make money from tourists. It must become the medium through which visitors can experience the quality of our life, the content of our culture, and the character of our people. The quality of a tourist’s experience is the measure of a nation’s quality of life. As Landis Hotels and Resorts President Stanley Yen put it, tourism is a way for Taiwan to make friends with the world. A single friendly experience can make a friend. Having made a friend, the rewards that can flow from such a friendship are endless. Conversely, one negative impression after another will lead to the loss of friends, and the loss of any opportunity to develop our tourism industry. If Taiwan wants to develop its tourism industry, it must not harbor only a desire to take tourists to the cleaners. This is true for mainland visitors or foreigners.

Large numbers of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan provide us with the opportunity to develop our tourism industry. But the government and industry must stop treating mainland tourists as passersby. They must take concrete action. Mainland China will soon be restoring its May 1st long vacation. Government agencies responsible for reviewing and issuing permits to visit Taiwan should ensure that every visitor departs as happily as he arrived. Based on the number of visitors to Taiwan, they must assume an active role in coordinating transportation, dining, and living facilities, ensuring that they meet the surge in tourist demand, As for cases already being dealt with, the relevant authorities should control tourist volume. Until the overall quality of service has been upgraded, they should maintain a strict limit of 3000 tourists a day. They must not use previously unfilled quotas. The purpose is not to limit quanity, but to control quality. In addition, the government must better evaluate and manage travel agencies. It may use quota allocations as an incentive, to prevent cutthroat competition.

The Executive Yuan recently passed its “Tourism Pilot Project.” It intends to invest 30 billion NT in a four-year Tourism Development Fund to create 550 billion NT in business opportunities. The government’s plans are extravagant and ambitious. But developing tourism requires more than paper planning. It requires a wide range of industries and services. From the executive branch it requires entry and exit permits. From the aviation industry it requires quality flight services. From travel agencies it requires itinerary planning and professional standards for tour guides. From the hotel industry it requires quality facilities and trained personnel. To create a tourist attraction requires efficient transportation routes and even high quality public toilets. It requires efficient cooperation between public authority and private creativity to link all these into a sustainable tourism industry. This is not merely about earning foreign exchange. It is also about improving the quality of life on Taiwan.

We must not view tourists arriving on Taiwan as cash cows to be milked, regardless of where they come from. We must make improvements based on our visitors’ perceptions. We must then impress visitors with the improvements we have made.

勿將陸客當路客：觀光業要永續經營
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.28 05:47 am

果不其然，當初規劃開放大陸人民來台觀光時預期可能出紕漏的問題，隨著陸客來台人數的急速增加，一個個冒了出來。顯然，台灣觀光產業的量與質都還不夠水準；更重要的是，在數量商機的迷思下，政府及觀光業的心態都需要大大的調整，台灣觀光業才有可為。

政府推銷陸客觀光，是依一個大陸客在台停留多久、每天花費多少，合計為觀光業增加多少營收、為台灣經濟帶進多少外匯收益及創造多少就業機會，在做標榜，亦即用數字計算政策收益。這樣的計算方式正凸顯了政府及業者的心態，因為大陸有十三億人口，國內旅遊業者沒把陸客當成來台灣做客的旅客，反而存著每個大陸人做一次生意就能賺飽的短線心理，把陸客當成是偶爾經過的路客，於是所有的問題都隨著陸客的快速增加而一一浮現。

其一，有大陸旅行團來台簽證作業不及，在未獲入境許可下整團原機遣返，這代表雙方的溝通出問題；其二是旅行社承攬過多陸客團，卻因租不到遊覽車而讓陸客在機場空等；其三是愈來愈多的導遊抱怨，陸客團必去的三大景點──阿里山用餐須得排隊、故宮有如菜市場、日月潭變髒。這一切都在預期之中，卻迄未見改善之對策；尤其是業者殺價競爭，以低於成本的價格搶生意，再另以商店購物賺回扣、減少旅遊景點、改變交通工具等降低成本，導致旅遊品質節節下降。

彼岸開放大陸民眾來台旅遊，難謂沒有政治目的，既是展現善意，也是期待兩岸間互動能由上層往下普及到民間交流，以擴大接觸而增進了解，進而消除彼此的誤解及敵意；但我們對陸客來台，腦袋裡想到的卻盡是鈔票，不只沒有善用這個機會，讓彼岸人民看到台灣的風土民情、文化內涵、生活品味，更連基本的待客之道都沒有，台灣觀光業應有的水準顯已迷失在完全數字化的商機裡。

觀光產業不能只是賺來客的錢，更是希望成為來客能親身體驗我國生活水準、文化內涵及人民素質的最直接媒介，是國家總體生活機能的總檢驗。所以，一如亞都麗緻飯店集團總裁嚴長壽所言，觀光旅遊是「讓台灣和世界交朋友」，一次友善的體驗、交上了朋友，可以讓朋友源源不斷而來；反之，一次又一次打壞印象，朋友一個個流失，觀光產業不可能發展起來；台灣要發展觀光產業，就不能存著只撈來客一把的心理，不管來客是大陸人還是外國人。

大陸為數龐大的觀光客，正是台灣發展觀光產業的契機，但政府及業者將陸客當路客的心態必須改變，並須有相應的作法。在短期內，大陸五一長假將屆，負責審理、核發來台許可的政府機關，應儘速依據陸客來台人數，積極協調相關的交通、餐飲及住宿服務，以滿足陸客激增的需求，做到讓每位來客乘興而來、盡興而去；至於處理中的案件，政府主管機關應做好總額控管，在整體服務質量尚未提升之前，應嚴守每日三千人上限，不能再移用之前未用滿的額度；須知此一上限的目的不在控管數量，而在控管品質。再者，政府必須強化旅行社的評鑑及管理，並以名額的分配做為誘因，不容惡質競爭下去。

行政院最近通過「觀光拔尖領航計畫」，打算在四年內投入三百億元觀光發展基金，以創造五千五百億元商機。政府的規劃洋洋灑灑，但觀光業的發展不只是紙上作業的規劃，其涉及的產業及服務廣泛，從行政部門的入出境許可、航空業的飛航品質、旅行社的行程規劃及導遊的專業水準、觀光飯店的軟硬體設施、旅遊景點的打造、交通動線的效率，甚至公共廁所的品質等，可謂公權力與民間創意、效率的大結合，而能緊密串起這一切的共同認知是永續經營台灣觀光產業的心。這不只是創匯而已，更是在改善台灣自己的生活品質。

對於任何的來台觀光客，都不能只從如何賺錢的角度思考；必須從來客的感受中切實改善自我，亦從改善自我後的成效來感動來客。

Mainland Tourists are not Passersby

Mainland Tourists are not Passersby
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 28, 2009

As predicted, problems have arisen as the number of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan has rapidly increased. Taiwan’s tourism industry is clearly inadequate in both quantity and quality. More importantly, the government and the tourism industry must disabuse themselves of the myth of quantifiable business opportunities. Only then will Taiwan’s tourism industry be able to make something of itself.

The government has been promoting mainland tourism on based on how long a mainland tourist stays on Taiwan and how much he spends each day. The total purportedly constitutes the increase in tourist revenue, the amount of foreign exchange earned, and the employment opportunities created. The government uses statistics to calculate the effectiveness of its policies. These calculations reveal the government and the tourism industry’s mindset. Because the mainland has a population of 1.3 billion, local tour operators have treated mainland tourists not as Taiwan’s guests. Instead they have myopically viewed each mainland tourist as a one-time business opportunity. They have viewed mainland tourists as passersby. That is why problems with mainland tourists have rapidly increased.

One. One mainland tour group’s visa applications were not correctly filed. Without an entry permit the entire tour group was forced to return on the same plane. This revealed communication problems between the two sides. Two. Some tour groups overbooked, then found themselves unable to provide enough tour buses, forcing tourists to wait at the airport. Three. More and more tour guides complain that the three must-see tourist destinations for mainland tourists have problems. The dining facilities at Alishan require standing in line. The National Palace Museum has turned into a farm market. Sun Moon Lake is now littered with trash. All these circumstances were predictable, but we have yet to see any attempt to improve the situation. In particular, price competition within the industry, including below cost price wars, kickbacks from shops, a reduction in the number of tourist attractions, and changing modes of transportation to reduce costs, have led to a decline in the quality of tourism.

The other side is allowing the mainland public to visit Taiwan. Naturally it has political motives. But it also constitutes a show of goodwill. It hopes that interaction between the two sides will reach from top to bottom, via non-governmental exchanges. It hopes to expand contacts to enhance mutual understanding. It hopes to eliminate misunderstanding and hostility. Yet when we encounter mainland tourists on Taiwan, all we see is dollar signs. This fails to make the best use of the opportunity. Worse, it allows mainland vistors to see that Taiwan lacks even a rudimentary understanding of hospitality. The minimal standards Taiwan’s tourism industry require have been lost during the quantification of business opportunities.

The tourism industry must not merely make money from tourists. It must become the medium through which visitors can experience the quality of our life, the content of our culture, and the character of our people. The quality of a tourist’s experience is the measure of a nation’s quality of life. As Landis Hotels and Resorts President Stanley Yen put it, tourism is a way for Taiwan to make friends with the world. A single friendly experience can make a friend. Having made a friend, the rewards that can flow from such a friendship are endless. Conversely, one negative impression after another will lead to the loss of friends, and the loss of any opportunity to develop our tourism industry. If Taiwan wants to develop its tourism industry, it must not harbor only a desire to take tourists to the cleaners. This is true for mainland visitors or foreigners.

Large numbers of mainland tourists arriving on Taiwan provide us with the opportunity to develop our tourism industry. But the government and industry must stop treating mainland tourists as passersby. They must take concrete action. Mainland China will soon be restoring its May 1st long vacation. Government agencies responsible for reviewing and issuing permits to visit Taiwan should ensure that every visitor departs as happily as he arrived. Based on the number of visitors to Taiwan, they must assume an active role in coordinating transportation, dining, and living facilities, ensuring that they meet the surge in tourist demand, As for cases already being dealt with, the relevant authorities should control tourist volume. Until the overall quality of service has been upgraded, they should maintain a strict limit of 3000 tourists a day. They must not use previously unfilled quotas. The purpose is not to limit quanity, but to control quality. In addition, the government must better evaluate and manage travel agencies. It may use quota allocations as an incentive, to prevent cutthroat competition.

The Executive Yuan recently passed its “Tourism Pilot Project.” It intends to invest 30 billion NT in a four-year Tourism Development Fund to create 550 billion NT in business opportunities. The government’s plans are extravagant and ambitious. But developing tourism requires more than paper planning. It requires a wide range of industries and services. From the executive branch it requires entry and exit permits. From the aviation industry it requires quality flight services. From travel agencies it requires itinerary planning and professional standards for tour guides. From the hotel industry it requires quality facilities and trained personnel. To create a tourist attraction requires efficient transportation routes and even high quality public toilets. It requires efficient cooperation between public authority and private creativity to link all these into a sustainable tourism industry. This is not merely about earning foreign exchange. It is also about improving the quality of life on Taiwan.

We must not view tourists arriving on Taiwan as cash cows to be milked, regardless of where they come from. We must make improvements based on our visitors’ perceptions. We must then impress visitors with the improvements we have made.

勿將陸客當路客：觀光業要永續經營
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.28 05:47 am

果不其然，當初規劃開放大陸人民來台觀光時預期可能出紕漏的問題，隨著陸客來台人數的急速增加，一個個冒了出來。顯然，台灣觀光產業的量與質都還不夠水準；更重要的是，在數量商機的迷思下，政府及觀光業的心態都需要大大的調整，台灣觀光業才有可為。

政府推銷陸客觀光，是依一個大陸客在台停留多久、每天花費多少，合計為觀光業增加多少營收、為台灣經濟帶進多少外匯收益及創造多少就業機會，在做標榜，亦即用數字計算政策收益。這樣的計算方式正凸顯了政府及業者的心態，因為大陸有十三億人口，國內旅遊業者沒把陸客當成來台灣做客的旅客，反而存著每個大陸人做一次生意就能賺飽的短線心理，把陸客當成是偶爾經過的路客，於是所有的問題都隨著陸客的快速增加而一一浮現。

其一，有大陸旅行團來台簽證作業不及，在未獲入境許可下整團原機遣返，這代表雙方的溝通出問題；其二是旅行社承攬過多陸客團，卻因租不到遊覽車而讓陸客在機場空等；其三是愈來愈多的導遊抱怨，陸客團必去的三大景點──阿里山用餐須得排隊、故宮有如菜市場、日月潭變髒。這一切都在預期之中，卻迄未見改善之對策；尤其是業者殺價競爭，以低於成本的價格搶生意，再另以商店購物賺回扣、減少旅遊景點、改變交通工具等降低成本，導致旅遊品質節節下降。

彼岸開放大陸民眾來台旅遊，難謂沒有政治目的，既是展現善意，也是期待兩岸間互動能由上層往下普及到民間交流，以擴大接觸而增進了解，進而消除彼此的誤解及敵意；但我們對陸客來台，腦袋裡想到的卻盡是鈔票，不只沒有善用這個機會，讓彼岸人民看到台灣的風土民情、文化內涵、生活品味，更連基本的待客之道都沒有，台灣觀光業應有的水準顯已迷失在完全數字化的商機裡。

觀光產業不能只是賺來客的錢，更是希望成為來客能親身體驗我國生活水準、文化內涵及人民素質的最直接媒介，是國家總體生活機能的總檢驗。所以，一如亞都麗緻飯店集團總裁嚴長壽所言，觀光旅遊是「讓台灣和世界交朋友」，一次友善的體驗、交上了朋友，可以讓朋友源源不斷而來；反之，一次又一次打壞印象，朋友一個個流失，觀光產業不可能發展起來；台灣要發展觀光產業，就不能存著只撈來客一把的心理，不管來客是大陸人還是外國人。

大陸為數龐大的觀光客，正是台灣發展觀光產業的契機，但政府及業者將陸客當路客的心態必須改變，並須有相應的作法。在短期內，大陸五一長假將屆，負責審理、核發來台許可的政府機關，應儘速依據陸客來台人數，積極協調相關的交通、餐飲及住宿服務，以滿足陸客激增的需求，做到讓每位來客乘興而來、盡興而去；至於處理中的案件，政府主管機關應做好總額控管，在整體服務質量尚未提升之前，應嚴守每日三千人上限，不能再移用之前未用滿的額度；須知此一上限的目的不在控管數量，而在控管品質。再者，政府必須強化旅行社的評鑑及管理，並以名額的分配做為誘因，不容惡質競爭下去。

行政院最近通過「觀光拔尖領航計畫」，打算在四年內投入三百億元觀光發展基金，以創造五千五百億元商機。政府的規劃洋洋灑灑，但觀光業的發展不只是紙上作業的規劃，其涉及的產業及服務廣泛，從行政部門的入出境許可、航空業的飛航品質、旅行社的行程規劃及導遊的專業水準、觀光飯店的軟硬體設施、旅遊景點的打造、交通動線的效率，甚至公共廁所的品質等，可謂公權力與民間創意、效率的大結合，而能緊密串起這一切的共同認知是永續經營台灣觀光產業的心。這不只是創匯而已，更是在改善台灣自己的生活品質。

對於任何的來台觀光客，都不能只從如何賺錢的角度思考；必須從來客的感受中切實改善自我，亦從改善自我後的成效來感動來客。

Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations

Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2009

The Third Chiang/Chen Summit will be held in Nanjing. Rumor has it Taipei suggested the location, because Nanjing was the capital of the Republic of China, and Taipei wanted to underscore the institutional origins of the Chiang Pin-kung-led delegation. The mainland side was of course well aware of the implications of Taipei’s proposal. But it made no attempt to evade it. The host was happy to accomodate the guest.

Chiang Ping-kun’s plan to visit the “Republic of China Office of the President” however was canceled, allegedly for fear of arousing undue controversy. Too low a profile, and Taipei risks being written off as a relic of history. Too high a profile, and Taipei risks being suspected of creating “Two Chinas.”

In Nanjing, the “Office of the President Republic of China” has already become an historical monument. That is an undeniable fact. But the Chiang Pin-kung delegation from Taipei was authorized by the Office of the President of the Republic of China. That is also an undeniable fact.

Mutual non-recognition, in combination with mutual non-repudiation — this is the main reason cross-Strait relations have been able to develop to the extent they have today. If the two sides’ position was “mutual recognition,” they would have no need of proxies such as SEF and ARATS. The two sides’ position is “mutual non-repudiation,” meaning that the two sides do not deny each other’s legitimacy. They recognize that the two sides do in fact exist. Hence the need for proxies such as SEF and ARATS. After all, if the two sides did not exist, why would they need proxies?

For Taipei, Chiang Ching-kuo’s lifting of martial law and abolition of the Temporary Provisions during the Period of Communist Rebellion, were made in preparation of recognizing the People’s Republic of China government. But Beijing was concerned about any departure from the “One China Principle,” and refused to recognize the Republic of China. This is why the Beijing authorities are unwilling to recognize the ROC government. This is why legally speaking, the two sides refuse to recognize each other. They must maintain internal and external accountability and “reciprocity.” But the two sides’ reciprocity is not simply “mutual non-recognition.” Although the two sides do not recognize each others’ legitimacy legally, they cannot deny each others’ actual existence physically. Therefore the two sides’ reciprocity is actually “mutual non-recognition, plus mutual non-repudiation.” Otherwise, how could the two sides talk about market access and mutual legal assistance?

It has been less than a year since the second change in ruling parties on Taiwan. From last year’s Six Agreements to this year’s Three Major Issues, plus ECFA, which may be addressed during the second half of the year, cross-Strait interaction has expanded rapidly. The more cross-Strait relations are elevated, deepened, and broadened, and the more prominent the role of the two sides’ governments, then the more willing the two sides are to engage in “mutual non-repudiation.” Take for example the choice of Nanjing as the venue for the Chiang/Chen Summit. Three items, including air transport, finance, and the administration of justice, require the establishment of a working window in a real world context. They will no longer be government proxies. Cross-Strait exchanges will inevitably be elevated, deepened, and broadened. If the two sides deny each other’s legitimacy, how can they establish a government with legal jurisdiction? How can they even sbegin to discuss mutual legal assistance?

For the time being, the two sides neither recognize each other nor repudiate each other. This, according to Hu Jintao, is central to the “Framework for Peaceful cross-Strait Development.” In other words, Beijing’s policy toward Taipei cannot be be based on the premise that the “Republic of China has already perished.” Without “mutual non-repudiation,” cross-strait relations will be shattered and impossible to maintain. Without governments, how can one have government proxies?

If cross-Strait relations in 2008 are to return to the “1992 Consensus,” the two sides must maintain a position of “mutual non-repudiation.” Let us examine the two sides’ rhetorical formulations. Taipei invariably brings up “confront reality by not repudiating each other.” Beijing avoids responding directly, but substitutes “peaceful development, set a new course for the future.” The current Chiang/Chen Summit is no exception. As long as Beijing does not formally repudiate Taipei’s “confront reality by not repudiating each other,” the two sides still have room to maneuver. In short, some things can be done, but cannot be talked about.

For example, President Ma interpreted “1992 Consensus” as “One China, Different Interpretations.” Beijing did not respond directly, but neither did it repudiate it directly. This “mutual non-repudiation” is made possible by the “Different Interpretations” premise. It is essential to “peaceful cross-Strait development.” It is the absolute minimum requirement.

The achievements of the three Chiang/Chen Summits over the past two years have been based on “mutual non-repudiation.” The elevating, deepening, and broadening of cross-Strait relations will require increased “mutual non-repudiation.” We hope the authorities on both sides will appreciate the importance of this tacit understanding, and not undermine it lightly. As we see it, it may be unfortunate that we cannot recognize each other, but at least we must not repudiate each other!

「互不否認」是兩岸關係的中心支柱
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.27 05:45 am

三次江陳會選在南京舉行，據說是台灣方面的提議；因為南京曾是中華民國的首都，而欲藉此顯示江丙坤代表團的體制淵源。大陸方面對此提議的寓意，當然是心知肚明，卻也無所避忌，主隨客意。

不過，江丙坤畢竟取消了參訪南京「中華民國總統府」的計畫，據說是怕會引發見仁見智的效應。姿態低了，怕被說成是憑弔「遺跡」；姿態高了，又怕被說成操弄「兩個中國」。

然而，南京的「中華民國總統府」已成歷史遺跡，無可否認；但江丙坤代表團卻是出自台北的中華民國總統府之授權，同樣也是無可否認的事實。

互不承認，但也互不否認；這是兩岸關係能夠發展至今日境界的主要原因。倘若「相互承認」，就不必海基、海協當「白手套」了；但主要則是因「互不否認」，亦即雙方皆不否認對方有一隻真正的「手」存在，始會有海基、海協的「白手套」。否則，沒有手，空有白手套何用？

就台灣方面言，蔣經國解嚴，廢止動員戡亂時期臨時條款，這些都是預備「承認」中華人民共和國政府的動作；但北京方面則顧慮可能形成任何背離「一個中國原則」的情勢，而拒絕承認中華民國政府。正因中華民國政府不能得到北京政府的相對承認，也就必須「在法理上不承認」對方，以維持一個向內外交代的「對等關係」。然而，兩岸的「對等關係」，也並非只是「互不承認」；因為，雖然雙方在法理上互不承認，卻也不能否認雙方在法理上的實際存在。所以，較準確地說，兩岸此時所謂的「對等關係」，其實是「互不承認，但亦互不否認」。否則，談什麼市場准入及司法互助？

台灣第二次政黨輪替後，迄今不到一年的光陰，從去年的六項協議到今次的三大議題，且在下半年可能處理ＥＣＦＡ，兩岸互動的進度可謂是飛速躍進；在這一段進程中，可以明確地感知到，兩岸關係越往高處、深處及大處發展，兩岸政府的角色即越形凸顯，兩岸「互不否認」的程度也必然伴隨升高。以此次南京江陳會為例，空運、金融、司法三個項目，皆是以「框架」的形式呈現，未來實際運作的「窗口」，將皆是不再戴「白手套」的政府機構，這毋寧是兩岸交流往高處化、深處化及大處化後的必然發展。例如，如果相互否認為一個具有司法主權的政府，談什麼司法互助？

兩岸暫時不易進入「相互承認」的境地；但「互不否認」，卻是維持兩岸「和平發展框架」（胡錦濤語）的中心支柱。也就是說，北京對台政策，不能建立在「中華民國已經滅亡」的論述之上。倘若失去「互不否認」此一支柱，兩岸關係必告解構，無以維繫。沒有手，哪來的白手套？

兩岸關係在二○○八年回到「九二共識」，就是要維持一個「互不否認」的表述空間。且看雙方每次交手吟詩作對，台北幾乎次次都要提起「正視現實／互不否認」；但北京則皆避不回應，而代以「和平發展／開創未來」等語。此次江陳會，亦非例外。不過，只要北京不正面回拒或否認台北「正視現實／互不否認」的主張，只能做，不願說，兩岸即有了迴旋轉圜的空間。

正如，馬總統一直將「九二共識」引申為「一中各表」；北京方面雖未正面回應，但也未正面否認。這種「互不否認」的「各自表述」空間，實是兩岸「和平發展」的必要空間，也可謂是捨此即無生理的最低限度的空間了。

兩年三次江陳會的成就，是建立在「互不否認」上；未來兩岸關係若要更往高處、深處及大處發展，「互不否認」的意涵與效用亦將更形升高。希望兩岸當局能珍惜此一寶貴的默契，不要輕易傷損，我們的看法是：

可惜未能「相互承認」，但千萬不要「相互否認」！

Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations

Mutual Non-Repudiation: The Basis of Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 27, 2009

The Third Chiang/Chen Summit will be held in Nanjing. Rumor has it Taipei suggested the location, because Nanjing was the capital of the Republic of China, and Taipei wanted to underscore the institutional origins of the Chiang Pin-kung-led delegation. The mainland side was of course well aware of the implications of Taipei’s proposal. But it made no attempt to evade it. The host was happy to accomodate the guest.

Chiang Ping-kun’s plan to visit the “Republic of China Office of the President” however was canceled, allegedly for fear of arousing undue controversy. Too low a profile, and Taipei risks being written off as a relic of history. Too high a profile, and Taipei risks being suspected of creating “Two Chinas.”

In Nanjing, the “Office of the President Republic of China” has already become an historical monument. That is an undeniable fact. But the Chiang Pin-kung delegation from Taipei was authorized by the Office of the President of the Republic of China. That is also an undeniable fact.

Mutual non-recognition, in combination with mutual non-repudiation — this is the main reason cross-Strait relations have been able to develop to the extent they have today. If the two sides’ position was “mutual recognition,” they would have no need of proxies such as SEF and ARATS. The two sides’ position is “mutual non-repudiation,” meaning that the two sides do not deny each other’s legitimacy. They recognize that the two sides do in fact exist. Hence the need for proxies such as SEF and ARATS. After all, if the two sides did not exist, why would they need proxies?

For Taipei, Chiang Ching-kuo’s lifting of martial law and abolition of the Temporary Provisions during the Period of Communist Rebellion, were made in preparation of recognizing the People’s Republic of China government. But Beijing was concerned about any departure from the “One China Principle,” and refused to recognize the Republic of China. This is why the Beijing authorities are unwilling to recognize the ROC government. This is why legally speaking, the two sides refuse to recognize each other. They must maintain internal and external accountability and “reciprocity.” But the two sides’ reciprocity is not simply “mutual non-recognition.” Although the two sides do not recognize each others’ legitimacy legally, they cannot deny each others’ actual existence physically. Therefore the two sides’ reciprocity is actually “mutual non-recognition, plus mutual non-repudiation.” Otherwise, how could the two sides talk about market access and mutual legal assistance?

It has been less than a year since the second change in ruling parties on Taiwan. From last year’s Six Agreements to this year’s Three Major Issues, plus ECFA, which may be addressed during the second half of the year, cross-Strait interaction has expanded rapidly. The more cross-Strait relations are elevated, deepened, and broadened, and the more prominent the role of the two sides’ governments, then the more willing the two sides are to engage in “mutual non-repudiation.” Take for example the choice of Nanjing as the venue for the Chiang/Chen Summit. Three items, including air transport, finance, and the administration of justice, require the establishment of a working window in a real world context. They will no longer be government proxies. Cross-Strait exchanges will inevitably be elevated, deepened, and broadened. If the two sides deny each other’s legitimacy, how can they establish a government with legal jurisdiction? How can they even sbegin to discuss mutual legal assistance?

For the time being, the two sides neither recognize each other nor repudiate each other. This, according to Hu Jintao, is central to the “Framework for Peaceful cross-Strait Development.” In other words, Beijing’s policy toward Taipei cannot be be based on the premise that the “Republic of China has already perished.” Without “mutual non-repudiation,” cross-strait relations will be shattered and impossible to maintain. Without governments, how can one have government proxies?

If cross-Strait relations in 2008 are to return to the “1992 Consensus,” the two sides must maintain a position of “mutual non-repudiation.” Let us examine the two sides’ rhetorical formulations. Taipei invariably brings up “confront reality by not repudiating each other.” Beijing avoids responding directly, but substitutes “peaceful development, set a new course for the future.” The current Chiang/Chen Summit is no exception. As long as Beijing does not formally repudiate Taipei’s “confront reality by not repudiating each other,” the two sides still have room to maneuver. In short, some things can be done, but cannot be talked about.

For example, President Ma interpreted “1992 Consensus” as “One China, Different Interpretations.” Beijing did not respond directly, but neither did it repudiate it directly. This “mutual non-repudiation” is made possible by the “Different Interpretations” premise. It is essential to “peaceful cross-Strait development.” It is the absolute minimum requirement.

The achievements of the three Chiang/Chen Summits over the past two years have been based on “mutual non-repudiation.” The elevating, deepening, and broadening of cross-Strait relations will require increased “mutual non-repudiation.” We hope the authorities on both sides will appreciate the importance of this tacit understanding, and not undermine it lightly. As we see it, it may be unfortunate that we cannot recognize each other, but at least we must not repudiate each other!

「互不否認」是兩岸關係的中心支柱
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.27 05:45 am

三次江陳會選在南京舉行，據說是台灣方面的提議；因為南京曾是中華民國的首都，而欲藉此顯示江丙坤代表團的體制淵源。大陸方面對此提議的寓意，當然是心知肚明，卻也無所避忌，主隨客意。

不過，江丙坤畢竟取消了參訪南京「中華民國總統府」的計畫，據說是怕會引發見仁見智的效應。姿態低了，怕被說成是憑弔「遺跡」；姿態高了，又怕被說成操弄「兩個中國」。

然而，南京的「中華民國總統府」已成歷史遺跡，無可否認；但江丙坤代表團卻是出自台北的中華民國總統府之授權，同樣也是無可否認的事實。

互不承認，但也互不否認；這是兩岸關係能夠發展至今日境界的主要原因。倘若「相互承認」，就不必海基、海協當「白手套」了；但主要則是因「互不否認」，亦即雙方皆不否認對方有一隻真正的「手」存在，始會有海基、海協的「白手套」。否則，沒有手，空有白手套何用？

就台灣方面言，蔣經國解嚴，廢止動員戡亂時期臨時條款，這些都是預備「承認」中華人民共和國政府的動作；但北京方面則顧慮可能形成任何背離「一個中國原則」的情勢，而拒絕承認中華民國政府。正因中華民國政府不能得到北京政府的相對承認，也就必須「在法理上不承認」對方，以維持一個向內外交代的「對等關係」。然而，兩岸的「對等關係」，也並非只是「互不承認」；因為，雖然雙方在法理上互不承認，卻也不能否認雙方在法理上的實際存在。所以，較準確地說，兩岸此時所謂的「對等關係」，其實是「互不承認，但亦互不否認」。否則，談什麼市場准入及司法互助？

台灣第二次政黨輪替後，迄今不到一年的光陰，從去年的六項協議到今次的三大議題，且在下半年可能處理ＥＣＦＡ，兩岸互動的進度可謂是飛速躍進；在這一段進程中，可以明確地感知到，兩岸關係越往高處、深處及大處發展，兩岸政府的角色即越形凸顯，兩岸「互不否認」的程度也必然伴隨升高。以此次南京江陳會為例，空運、金融、司法三個項目，皆是以「框架」的形式呈現，未來實際運作的「窗口」，將皆是不再戴「白手套」的政府機構，這毋寧是兩岸交流往高處化、深處化及大處化後的必然發展。例如，如果相互否認為一個具有司法主權的政府，談什麼司法互助？

兩岸暫時不易進入「相互承認」的境地；但「互不否認」，卻是維持兩岸「和平發展框架」（胡錦濤語）的中心支柱。也就是說，北京對台政策，不能建立在「中華民國已經滅亡」的論述之上。倘若失去「互不否認」此一支柱，兩岸關係必告解構，無以維繫。沒有手，哪來的白手套？

兩岸關係在二○○八年回到「九二共識」，就是要維持一個「互不否認」的表述空間。且看雙方每次交手吟詩作對，台北幾乎次次都要提起「正視現實／互不否認」；但北京則皆避不回應，而代以「和平發展／開創未來」等語。此次江陳會，亦非例外。不過，只要北京不正面回拒或否認台北「正視現實／互不否認」的主張，只能做，不願說，兩岸即有了迴旋轉圜的空間。

正如，馬總統一直將「九二共識」引申為「一中各表」；北京方面雖未正面回應，但也未正面否認。這種「互不否認」的「各自表述」空間，實是兩岸「和平發展」的必要空間，也可謂是捨此即無生理的最低限度的空間了。

兩年三次江陳會的成就，是建立在「互不否認」上；未來兩岸關係若要更往高處、深處及大處發展，「互不否認」的意涵與效用亦將更形升高。希望兩岸當局能珍惜此一寶貴的默契，不要輕易傷損，我們的看法是：

可惜未能「相互承認」，但千萬不要「相互否認」！

Throw off the Shackles of History

Throw off the Shackles of History
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2009

Can you believe it? The day before yesterday Ma Ying-jeou proposed a “new conception of geography” that bore a striking resemblance to the “blueprint for the next century” issued by the DPP 12 years ago.

President Ma held a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank. He proposed a “new conception of geography.” He said his administration attaches greater importance to Taiwan’s “geographical location” than to its “history.” To Taiwan’s east, west, south, and north are the United States, Mainland China, ASEAN, and Japan. Along with the European Union, these constitute the world’s six largest economic zones. Therefore his adminstration hopes to make good use of Taiwan’s status as a hub, and allow Taiwan to link these economic zones.

Twelve years ago, in 1997, the DPP issued a “blueprint for the next century — national land development plan.” It noted that Taiwan is not at the center, nor is it at the periphery. It has vitality, the ability to reflect upon its circumstances, and the ability to create a bridge between the sea and the land, and between east and west.

Ma’s “new conception of geography” is remarkably similar to the DPP’s.

Twelve years ago DPP Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang proposed his “boldly go west / do business in China” policy. The aforementioned “blueprint for the next century” was based precisely on such lofty sentiments and aspirations. Back then Taiwan was mired in controversy over “Taiwan’s primacy.” Was Taiwan at the center, or was it at the periphery? The “blueprint for the next century” was an attempt to use “Taiwan’s functionality” as an “interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west,” to replace or supplement “Taiwan’s primacy.” Taiwan’s primacy emphasizes politics and history. Taiwan’s functionality emphasizes economics and geography.

We on Taiwan have for too long been constrained by history and politics. To free ourselves from such constraints we must take advantage of our economic strengths and geopolitical advantages. President Ma said he attached greater importance to the Taiwan region’s “geographical location” than to its “history.” Actually the only way we on Taiwan can improve our political situation and open up new possibilities, is to make maximum use of our geographical advantage and economic vitality. Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party’s “blueprint for the next century”, said Taiwan had “vitailty, the ability to reflect upon its condition, and creativity.” It too stressed adjusting one’s thinking. It too stressed that Taiwan can function as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. In short, it was a harbinger of President Ma’s “new conception of geography.”

The DPP’s “blueprint for the next century” was eventually shredded, and Hsu Hsin-liang ousted from the party. But it showed that even within the Democratic Progressive Party, one could find a “new conception of geography.” It remains a latent force even today. Hsu Hsin-liang has returned to the Democratic Progressive Party. Reread this “blueprint for the next century” from 12 years ago. Had Chen Shui-bian implemented even a tiny part of this blueprint during his eight years in office, the DPP would not have led the nation down the garden path as far as it has.

President Ma’s “new conception of geography” stressed Taiwan’s location at the center of four major economic zones. He hopes to use economics to improve the nation’s political situation. He hopes to use geography to improve the nation’s historical fortunes. Twelve years ago the DPP’s “blueprint for the next century – national land development plan” aspired to establish Taiwan as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. Was it not engaged in the same sort of political and economic thinking? Was it not using the same strategy for national survival?

At this point, one can’t help but feel pity for the Democratic Progressive Party. One can’t help but feel sad for the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to change history. But it defies global trends and remains a captive of history. It wants to improve the nation’s political circumstances. But it remains bound by ideological and political constraints. The Democratic Progressive Party’s “rectification of names, declaration of independence, and founding of a new nation” can only tear society apart and provoke internal conflict. How can it change history? How can it improve the nation’s political situation? Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party spoke of “vitality, an ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity.” Where is that “vitality, ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity” today?

We on Taiwan must liberate ourselves from the shackles of history. We must think instead in terms of geography. It matters not whether we call it a “new conception of geography,” or an “interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west.” The road ahead will be difficult. But it is the only road to our salvation.

To people of vision within the Democratic Progressive Party, why not revisit this courageous moment in your own history? If the shackles of history cannot save Taiwan, how can they possibly save the DPP?

解脫「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.24 05:44 am

你信不信？馬英九總統最近（就在前天）提出的「新地理思維」，竟然與民進黨十二年前發表的「跨世紀建設藍圖」有六七分神似。

前天，馬總統與美國智庫ＣＳＩＳ舉行視訊會議，提出「新地理思維」。他說：他的政府重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；台灣的東、西、南、北邊，分別是美國、中國、東協與日本等世界前五大經濟區（除了歐盟）；因此應善用台灣的樞紐地位，讓台灣串聯這些經濟區。

十二年前，一九九七年，民進黨發表「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」。大要指出：台灣不是中心，也不是邊陲；而是一個有活力、有反省力及有創造力的海陸界面與東西橋樑。

兩者皆屬「新地理思維」，豈不有六七分神似？

十二年前，許信良任民進黨主席，主張「大膽西進／經營中國」；前述「跨世紀藍圖」就是出自那般的豪情壯志。當年，台灣正陷於「台灣主體論」的爭議之中（是中心？或是邊陲？）；但「跨世紀藍圖」，則試圖以「台灣機能論」（是海陸界面與東西橋樑）來取代或補充「台灣主體論」。「主體論」的主軸，是政治的、歷史的；「機能論」的主軸，則是經濟的、地理的。

台灣久陷歷史與政治的束縛之中，但台灣欲脫離束縛的機會，卻在我們的經濟能量及地緣優勢。馬總統說，他重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；此話或可作部分補充，較周延的表達應是：台灣唯有善用其地緣優勢及經濟能量，始有改善其政治處境及開創歷史新運的可能性。在這一方面，民進黨十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，指台灣「有活力、有反省力、有創造力」，其所強調者應也是這種思維境界的調整；至於指出了台灣可以作為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，則豈不儼然可說是馬總統「新地理思維」的預言與先聲？

雖然，後來民進黨的這一張「跨世紀藍圖」淪為廢紙，許信良亦被掃地出門；但畢竟顯示，民進黨內也有此類「新地理思維」，且迄今依然潛伏存在，而許信良也又回到了民進黨。如今重閱這張十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，倘若後來陳水扁八年執政能稍存此念，民進黨大概也不會誤國殃民到今日這種地步。

看馬總統的「新地理思維」，將台灣在全球四大經濟區的中心地位點出，應可感知他想用經濟改善國家政治處境、想用地理開創歷史機運的用心。而十二年前，民進黨的「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」，欲將台灣建設為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，難道不是同樣的政經思維？又難道不是同樣的國家生存戰略？

談到這裡，不能不令人為民進黨惜，更令人為民進黨悲！民進黨想要改變歷史，卻因昧於國際潮流而被歷史束縛；想要改善國家政治處境，卻因囿於意識形態而被政治束縛。民進黨那一套「正名制憲／獨立建國」的論調，只是一場撕裂族群的民主內戰而已，如何能改變歷史？又如何能改善國家政治處境？民進黨十二年前所說的「活力、反省力、創造力」，今安在哉？

台灣必須從「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」。不論稱此為「新地理思維」，或「海陸界面／東西橋樑」。此路雖必是坎坷崎嶇，但這是台灣更生的唯一道途，捨此不能救台灣。

民進黨中的有心人，何不回視十二年前那浪漫豪壯的一頁？「歷史束縛」不能救台灣，焉能救黨？

Throw off the Shackles of History

Throw off the Shackles of History
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 24, 2009

Can you believe it? The day before yesterday Ma Ying-jeou proposed a “new conception of geography” that bore a striking resemblance to the “blueprint for the next century” issued by the DPP 12 years ago.

President Ma held a video conference with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a US think tank. He proposed a “new conception of geography.” He said his administration attaches greater importance to Taiwan’s “geographical location” than to its “history.” To Taiwan’s east, west, south, and north are the United States, Mainland China, ASEAN, and Japan. Along with the European Union, these constitute the world’s six largest economic zones. Therefore his adminstration hopes to make good use of Taiwan’s status as a hub, and allow Taiwan to link these economic zones.

Twelve years ago, in 1997, the DPP issued a “blueprint for the next century — national land development plan.” It noted that Taiwan is not at the center, nor is it at the periphery. It has vitality, the ability to reflect upon its circumstances, and the ability to create a bridge between the sea and the land, and between east and west.

Ma’s “new conception of geography” is remarkably similar to the DPP’s.

Twelve years ago DPP Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang proposed his “boldly go west / do business in China” policy. The aforementioned “blueprint for the next century” was based precisely on such lofty sentiments and aspirations. Back then Taiwan was mired in controversy over “Taiwan’s primacy.” Was Taiwan at the center, or was it at the periphery? The “blueprint for the next century” was an attempt to use “Taiwan’s functionality” as an “interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west,” to replace or supplement “Taiwan’s primacy.” Taiwan’s primacy emphasizes politics and history. Taiwan’s functionality emphasizes economics and geography.

We on Taiwan have for too long been constrained by history and politics. To free ourselves from such constraints we must take advantage of our economic strengths and geopolitical advantages. President Ma said he attached greater importance to the Taiwan region’s “geographical location” than to its “history.” Actually the only way we on Taiwan can improve our political situation and open up new possibilities, is to make maximum use of our geographical advantage and economic vitality. Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party’s “blueprint for the next century”, said Taiwan had “vitailty, the ability to reflect upon its condition, and creativity.” It too stressed adjusting one’s thinking. It too stressed that Taiwan can function as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. In short, it was a harbinger of President Ma’s “new conception of geography.”

The DPP’s “blueprint for the next century” was eventually shredded, and Hsu Hsin-liang ousted from the party. But it showed that even within the Democratic Progressive Party, one could find a “new conception of geography.” It remains a latent force even today. Hsu Hsin-liang has returned to the Democratic Progressive Party. Reread this “blueprint for the next century” from 12 years ago. Had Chen Shui-bian implemented even a tiny part of this blueprint during his eight years in office, the DPP would not have led the nation down the garden path as far as it has.

President Ma’s “new conception of geography” stressed Taiwan’s location at the center of four major economic zones. He hopes to use economics to improve the nation’s political situation. He hopes to use geography to improve the nation’s historical fortunes. Twelve years ago the DPP’s “blueprint for the next century – national land development plan” aspired to establish Taiwan as an interface between the sea and the land, and a bridge between east and west. Was it not engaged in the same sort of political and economic thinking? Was it not using the same strategy for national survival?

At this point, one can’t help but feel pity for the Democratic Progressive Party. One can’t help but feel sad for the Democratic Progressive Party. The Democratic Progressive Party wants to change history. But it defies global trends and remains a captive of history. It wants to improve the nation’s political circumstances. But it remains bound by ideological and political constraints. The Democratic Progressive Party’s “rectification of names, declaration of independence, and founding of a new nation” can only tear society apart and provoke internal conflict. How can it change history? How can it improve the nation’s political situation? Twelve years ago the Democratic Progressive Party spoke of “vitality, an ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity.” Where is that “vitality, ability to engage in self-introspection, and creativity” today?

We on Taiwan must liberate ourselves from the shackles of history. We must think instead in terms of geography. It matters not whether we call it a “new conception of geography,” or an “interface between sea and land, and a bridge between east and west.” The road ahead will be difficult. But it is the only road to our salvation.

To people of vision within the Democratic Progressive Party, why not revisit this courageous moment in your own history? If the shackles of history cannot save Taiwan, how can they possibly save the DPP?

解脫「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.04.24 05:44 am

你信不信？馬英九總統最近（就在前天）提出的「新地理思維」，竟然與民進黨十二年前發表的「跨世紀建設藍圖」有六七分神似。

前天，馬總統與美國智庫ＣＳＩＳ舉行視訊會議，提出「新地理思維」。他說：他的政府重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；台灣的東、西、南、北邊，分別是美國、中國、東協與日本等世界前五大經濟區（除了歐盟）；因此應善用台灣的樞紐地位，讓台灣串聯這些經濟區。

十二年前，一九九七年，民進黨發表「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」。大要指出：台灣不是中心，也不是邊陲；而是一個有活力、有反省力及有創造力的海陸界面與東西橋樑。

兩者皆屬「新地理思維」，豈不有六七分神似？

十二年前，許信良任民進黨主席，主張「大膽西進／經營中國」；前述「跨世紀藍圖」就是出自那般的豪情壯志。當年，台灣正陷於「台灣主體論」的爭議之中（是中心？或是邊陲？）；但「跨世紀藍圖」，則試圖以「台灣機能論」（是海陸界面與東西橋樑）來取代或補充「台灣主體論」。「主體論」的主軸，是政治的、歷史的；「機能論」的主軸，則是經濟的、地理的。

台灣久陷歷史與政治的束縛之中，但台灣欲脫離束縛的機會，卻在我們的經濟能量及地緣優勢。馬總統說，他重視的是台灣的「地理位置」，而非「歷史」；此話或可作部分補充，較周延的表達應是：台灣唯有善用其地緣優勢及經濟能量，始有改善其政治處境及開創歷史新運的可能性。在這一方面，民進黨十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，指台灣「有活力、有反省力、有創造力」，其所強調者應也是這種思維境界的調整；至於指出了台灣可以作為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，則豈不儼然可說是馬總統「新地理思維」的預言與先聲？

雖然，後來民進黨的這一張「跨世紀藍圖」淪為廢紙，許信良亦被掃地出門；但畢竟顯示，民進黨內也有此類「新地理思維」，且迄今依然潛伏存在，而許信良也又回到了民進黨。如今重閱這張十二年前的「跨世紀藍圖」，倘若後來陳水扁八年執政能稍存此念，民進黨大概也不會誤國殃民到今日這種地步。

看馬總統的「新地理思維」，將台灣在全球四大經濟區的中心地位點出，應可感知他想用經濟改善國家政治處境、想用地理開創歷史機運的用心。而十二年前，民進黨的「跨世紀建設藍圖—國土發展計劃」，欲將台灣建設為「海陸界面／東西橋樑」，難道不是同樣的政經思維？又難道不是同樣的國家生存戰略？

談到這裡，不能不令人為民進黨惜，更令人為民進黨悲！民進黨想要改變歷史，卻因昧於國際潮流而被歷史束縛；想要改善國家政治處境，卻因囿於意識形態而被政治束縛。民進黨那一套「正名制憲／獨立建國」的論調，只是一場撕裂族群的民主內戰而已，如何能改變歷史？又如何能改善國家政治處境？民進黨十二年前所說的「活力、反省力、創造力」，今安在哉？

台灣必須從「歷史束縛」，轉向「地理驅動」。不論稱此為「新地理思維」，或「海陸界面／東西橋樑」。此路雖必是坎坷崎嶇，但這是台灣更生的唯一道途，捨此不能救台灣。

民進黨中的有心人，何不回視十二年前那浪漫豪壯的一頁？「歷史束縛」不能救台灣，焉能救黨？

Politics as a Profession

Politics as a Profession
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2009

We once believed politicians saw politics as a calling, in accord with sociologist Max Weber’s ideal. Politicians must strike a difficult balance between their ethical convictions and their political constraints. We assumed that even politicians such as Machiavelli, who stopped at nothing and sold his soul to the devil, were acting for the greater good. But over the past several years, we have witnessed Taiwan’s politicians amass huge fortunes and act solely for their own self-interest.

Such politicians defy our expectations. Moreover, when politicians openly reveal concern only for their own self-interest, how can we still believe they are qualified to engage in politics, which is everybody’s business?

To answer this question, one must take a hard look at this business called politics. In general, the only time one will ever encounter professional politicians is in regions such as mainland China or nations such as the Soviet Union, which were founded by professional revolutionaries. In democratic countries, most politicians are people who have undergone a mid-life career change. The current issue of The Economist calculates that out of 5000 politicians in democracies over the world, most are lawyers and law-related professionals. They constitute nearly 20%. President Barack Obama of the United States and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Half of all U.S. senators are in law-related professions.

Are lawyers qualified to be politicians? Following the Chen Shui-bian administration, lawyers turned politicians have left society a highly negative image of themselves as people concerned only with procedural technicalities and eager to win at any cost. And yet America’s greatest President Abraham Lincoln was a prominent lawyer. In his book “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville heaped praise upon lawyers for their respect for due process as a means of moderating public passions. .

Second on the list was businessmen. Businessmen turned politicians are even more controversial than lawyers. Take Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, or former President of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra. Both blurred the line between their private accounts and the national treasury. Thaksin is currently in exile over charges of corruption. Silvio Berlusconi remains immune from prosecution because he is Prime Minister. Their methods of sheltering and expanding their private fortunes, have left a negative image of businessmen turned politicians.

But if one looks at examples at home and abroad, businessmen turned politicians are hardly the only ones who profit by assuming political office. Moreover, businessmen turned politicians are not without merits. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was once seen as an exemplar of entrepreneurs turned statesmen. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is typical transplant from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. In the wake of the financial crisis, a number of figures from the financial sector joined the British Cabinet.

Then there are academics turned politicians. when former President Lee Teng-hui was in office he was praised as Mr. Democracy. Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, was formerly an academic famous for his theory of interdependence. During his term of office he helped Brazil remake itself and gain international respect. But the performance of academics turned politicians is difficult to predict. Dr. Liu Chao-hsuan’s cabinet has been referred to as a “cabinet of professors.” Yet its performance has been below expectations.

Lawyers, businessmen, and academics turned politicians once considered politics a mission. But in recent decades a new trend has appeared, politics as a profession. British journalist Peter Oborne’s book, “The Triumph of the Political Class,” points to think tanks, political consultants, public relations firms, and other quasi-political institutions which have become a reserve of political talent. These people may not have had any other form of work experience. In other words, politics has finally become a profession.

Peter Oborne cites the new British Labor Party as a prime example. If you want to stand out in politics, first, you must express an interest in politics while in school. Second, you must become an aide to a promising politician. Third, if you wish to reach the top, you must breath the same air and drink the same water as politicians at the top. This kind of politics doesn’t concern itself with policy, only with marketing. Once in office, anything goes in the struggle for power, utterly indifferent to the perceptions of others.

Does this sound familiar? Everyone from members of the student movement on Taiwan who turned to politics, to Karl Rove, aka “Bush’s brain,” has taken the same shortcut to the top. This has led to either their own downfall, or their superior becoming the most unpopular president in history.

Every profession has its own code of ethics. But establishing a code of ethics for the “profession of politics” may be difficult. Those who seek political office have only one objective – to win. And after all, it is a zero-sum game. My win is your loss. My political survival means your political death. The new Political Class lives amidst such fierce competition. How can one possibily expect them to behave as professionals? How can one not expect them to degenerate into unprincipled schemers? Many people consider politics a necessary evil. There is no reason to expand this new Political Class.

The plight of Wang Hsueh-feng and numerous other former legislators is sad. But if this inspires us to establish pensions for legislators, it will only attract more unsuitable people. It will also expand the class of political professionals of dubious merit. Perhaps the best approach is to return to the classic model of politics as a mission, in which one enters the field without any expectations of profit.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.04.23
政治，作為一種專業
本報訊

曾經，我們認為政治人物應該將政治當作一種志業，就如社會學家馬克斯．韋伯的理想，政治人物必須在信念倫理與責任倫理之間辛苦掙扎求取平衡，即使是馬基維利式的政治人物，雖然不擇手段出賣靈魂，也應該是為了眾人更大的利益；但是，這幾年來，我們看到台灣的政治人物，不是為己聚斂巨利，就是為自己的生計哀哀求告。

這樣的政治人物不但違反我們的期許，而且，當政治人物敢於公然斤斤計較自己的福利時，我們能相信他們有能力作好政治這個眾人之事嗎？

要回答這個問題，就必須先好好面對政治這一行。一般而言，只有在靠著革命建國的中國或前蘇聯，才會有一群專以政治維生的職業革命家；在民主國家，多數的政治人物都是半途轉行的。這期的《經濟學人》統計全球名人榜五千個政治人物發現，在民主國家，律師或法律相關人士從政還是最吃香的，高達二成，不但美國總統歐巴馬、國務卿希拉蕊是律師出身，美國半數參議員都從事法律相關行業。

律師能不能成為合格的政治家？經過前總統陳水扁時代，律師從政確實留下不少陰影，他們執迷於程序問題、往往為了勝利不擇手段；但是，美國最偉大的總統林肯就是相當傑出的律師，托克維爾在《民主在美國》一書，就高度稱讚律師這種尊重程序的態度，可以平衡群眾的激情。

高居排行榜第二名的，就是商人。商人從政的爭議性，遠甚於律師，如義大利總理貝魯斯科尼，泰國前總統戴克辛都有國產、家產不分的問題；戴克辛涉貪流亡海外，貝魯斯科尼則藉總理身分取得刑事豁免權，他們保護及擴大個人私產的作法，是商人從政的負面示範。

不過，觀諸國內外的例子，藉從政牟利，並非商人獨有；而且，商人從政並非全無優點，例如韓國總統李明博，就一度被視為是企業家治國的典範，美國前財長鮑爾森則是華爾街進軍華府的典型，金融風暴後，英國內閣也增加了金融界出身的官員。

學者從政也是一種典型，前總統李登輝在任時被尊為民主先生，巴西前總統卡多索原來就是提出依賴理論的有名學者，他任內讓巴西脫胎換骨成為受重視的國家；不過，學者從政表現難以預測，劉內閣號稱博士內閣，但是表現不如預期。

不論律師、商人還是學者從政，初衷可能是將政治當作一種志業，但近幾十年來的新趨勢，則是「將政治當作一種專業」。英國記者Peter Oborne的《The Triumph of the Political Class》一書，點出智庫、政治顧問、公關公司等「准」政治機構，已成為政治人才的儲備所，這些人不必有任何其他工作經驗，政治終於變成一種專業。

Peter Oborne描述的是以英國新工黨為主的例子，如果你想在政治上出頭，第一步，在校時你就必須凸顯自己對政治的興趣；第二步，你務必要幫一個有前途的政治人物作事；第三步，最後若要登上頂峰，你必須與最能搞政治的人吃在一起，玩在一起。這樣的人從政不管政策內容只管行銷，一旦在位就無所不用其極的爭權奪利，完全無視他人觀感。

這樣的形容聽起來是不是熟悉？從台灣的學運世代從政，到號稱「布希大腦」的卡爾羅夫，走的都是同樣的登龍捷徑，最後不是自己身敗名裂，就是害頂頭上司成為史上最不受歡迎的總統。

如果說每一個行業都會有其職業倫理，看來，「政治專業」殊難建立合理的職業規範，因為，從事公職選舉的目標向來就是要贏，而且是零和遊戲、你死我活的勝利。政治新階層長期處於這樣的激烈競爭，如何要求此一專業的人，不發展出陰狠狡詐的心態！因此，就像許多人將政治視為必要之惡一樣，這樣的政治新階級確實不宜擴大。

王雪峰等諸多下台立委的處境確實堪憐，但是，如果真的為此去訂定立委退職金，只是吸引更多不適合的人，而且也擴大了看不出有什麼好處的政治專業階層；也許，回到古典的「政治作為一種志業」才是最好的一種模式，要進這一行前，你必須要有無法獲利的心理準備及決心。