When will Deng Xiaoping’s Portrait be Displayed at Tiananmen Square?

When will Deng Xiaoping’s Portrait be Displayed at Tiananmen Square?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 7, 2009

The Beijing authorities have been preoccupied with a number of major events. The 10/1 celebration and the Beijing Olympics convey very different notions. To the outside world, the synchronized placard displays during the Beijing Olympics hinted at peaceful development. The large scale troop review during the 10/1 celebration meanwhile, contained more than a hint of swagger.

Ideally a major power should promote peace abroad and maintain harmony at home. But prior to the Cold War, major powers used their superior might to exploit or bully smaller or weaker nations. China suffered grievously. From the Opium War of 1840, though the eight year long Japanese invasion, the Chinese people shed oceans of blood and wept rivers of tears. Mainland China’s military capability now enables it to “just say no.” It has minimized the likelihood of foreign aggression. This is a prerequisite for a major power. Meanwhile the evolution of human civilization makes it difficult to imagine any country ever again becoming a major aggressor. The U.S. invasion of Iraq may be the last instance of a war of aggression by a major power. In other words, instead of committing aggression and engaging in slaughter, the major powers are now forstalling conflict. In this regard, Beijing’s “peaceful development” or even “peaceful rise,” may constitute a new paradigm for developing nations.

Let’s talk about internal harmony. Within a globalized economy, nations that refuse to open themselves up to the rest of the world cannot become major powers. Nations that open themselves up to the outside world inevitably experience an increase in freedom of thought and awareness of civil rights. They can no longer be ruled by totalitarian dictatorships. In other words, for social harmony to prevail inside a major power requires democracy and human rights.

The People’s Republic of China established its authority 60 years ago. The development most worth celebrating is the transformation of the Chinese Communist Party from Mao Zedong’s Communist Party to Deng Xiaoping’s Communist Party. If this were not the case, today’s Mainland would be little more than the Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) writ large. Internationally, there would be no possibility of “peaceful development.” Domestically, Kim Jong-il style measures would be necessary to maintain a semblance of social harmony. Given the peace and prosperity the CCP and China enjoy today, it is not Mao Zedong’s portrait that ought to be displayed at Tiananmen Square, but Deng Xiaoping’s.

During the 10/1 celebration, Hu Jintao continued to pay lip service to “Marxism” and “Mao Zedong Thought.” The CCP “annihilated the Gang of Four” in 1976. It launched a movement to discredit Mao Zedong. It initiated three decades of reform and liberalization. The result? Today’s Chinese Communist Party constitutes the largest collection of “capitalist roaders” and “revisionists” the world has ever seen. The problem is that the CCP has essentially repudiated Mao Zedong, but continues to display his portrait in Tiananmen Square. If it publicly criticized Mao, it might undermine the legitimacy of the CCP. The CCP continues to display Mao’s portrait, even after it has turned its back on Mao and repudiated him. This gap between theory and practice is a major issue that the CCP must address but has yet to address. Every day the CCP refuses to talk about Mao Zedong’s 30 year long debacle, is a day that it delays its own transformation and the transformation of Mainland China.

Sun Yat-sen’s portrait can still be seen in Tiananmen Square. It remained on display during this year’s 60th anniversary 10/1 celebration. Meanwhile, the portraits of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are already gone. This says that the CCP hopes to distance itself from Mao Zedong and Communism. Instead, it is attempting to preserve another grander, more open political tradition. Having evaluated their internal and external circumstances, they continue to argue that “Mao’s merits outnumber his demerits, seven to three.” But this is not a position they can maintain long-term. Mao Zedong is not an appropriate national icon for China, anymore than Adolf Hitler is an appropriate national icon for Germany. If the CCP and Mainland China wish to undergo gradual transformation, they should adopt a gradual strategy for transformation. They should gradually elevate the political status of Deng Xiaoping. They should gradually relieve themselves of the historical baggage of Mao Zedong. This is a viable approach. In fact, Deng Xiaoping and lower level CCP leaders such as Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang liberated themselves from the bonds of Mao Zedong some time ago. If the CCP hopes to transform the party and the nation, it must liberate itself from the bonds of Mao Zedong, in form as well as in substance. This is an inevitable process. Otherwise it will be difficult to undergo rebirth. If the CCP seeks rebirth in an increasingly democratic Chinese society, it must negotiate this passage, sooner if not later. If it cannot repudiate Mao as a national icon, he will forever remain an obstacle to the transformation of the CCP and Mainland China.

The CCP and Mainland China have a long way to go in their transformation. They must gradually rid themselves of old baggage. They must gradually give themselves a makeover. The day Mao Zedong’s portrait comes down at Tiananmen Square will be the day the CCP and Mainland China complete their political tranformation.

天安門城樓該掛鄧小平像？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.07 03:32 am

同為北京當局全神貫注的大活動，十一與京奧的演示意象旨趣迥異。京奧的主題，是用活字演出多彩多姿的「和」字，對外象徵「和平發展」，對內意指「和諧社會」；十一則以大閱兵為主場景，當然有「耀武揚威」的意味。

理想的大國境界，就是對外「和平」，對內維持「和諧」。人類在二十世紀冷戰以前的「大國」，皆是仗恃武力剝削或欺凌弱小。中國受害甚劇，自一八四○鴉片戰爭至日本侵華八年，山河血淚，委實創鉅痛深。中國大陸如今擁有這般武備，已具說「不」的實力，大抵已使外患外侮的可能性降至最低，這是成為「大國」的條件。但人類歷史文明演化至今，已難想像任何國家再能以窮兵黷武而成為「大國」；美國侵辱伊拉克可能是最後一個「大國侵略戰爭」。也就是說，大國的武力在「止戈」，而不是用在侵略及殺戮。就此而言，北京政權能以「和平發展」為對外的立國基調（甚至不說「和平崛起」），不無可能成為「大國」的新思潮與新典範。

再言對內「和諧」。在全球化的經濟情境中，國家不對外開放不可能成為「大國」；而對外開放的國家，國內自由思潮與民權意識必是有增無已，殆不可能再以專制極權為治國手段。也就是說，大國之內的「和諧社會」，終究須以民主及人權來維繫。

中華人民共和國建政六十周年，最值得慶幸者是：今日的中國共產黨已從「毛澤東的共產黨」，變成「鄧小平的共產黨」。倘非如此，今日的中國大陸也許只是大一號的「朝鮮民主主義人民共和國」（北韓）而已；對外不可能「和平發展」，對內則須以金正日那一套始能維持所謂的「和諧社會」。就此而言，中共與中國有今日，掛在天安門城樓上的巨像，不該是毛澤東，而應是鄧小平。

胡錦濤十一文告中，仍高舉「馬克思主義」及「毛澤東思想」。但是，今天的中共，其實是出自一九七六年中共舉黨透過「粉碎四人幫」而對毛澤東發動的鞭屍政變；三十年來的「改革開放」，已使現在的中共成為共產黨史上最大的「走資派」與「修正主義」。問題正在於此：現在的中共實質上是否定了毛澤東，卻又在天安門上掛著毛像。因為，如果發動公開批毛，中共的正當性亦可能動搖；但是，掛著毛像的中共，現在的實際作為卻是對毛的背離與否定。這種理論與實際乖離的異象，一直是中共必須解決但迄未解決的重大的議題。對毛澤東「三十年浩劫」的議論只要被中共捂著一天，中共即難望有使自己及中國轉型過渡的一天。

直至今年六十周年的十一，天安門廣場仍見豎起孫中山巨像，但「馬克思／恩格斯／列寧／斯大林」的巨像則早已不見，這顯示中共欲在毛澤東及共產主義以外，試圖保留另一個更開闊恢宏的政治傳承；但盱衡內外情勢，若對毛澤東的評價永遠停留在「功過七三開」的說法，其實仍非長久之計。中國之不宜以毛澤東為國家象徵，正如德國不宜以希特勒為國家象徵。中共與中國若欲一步一步轉型，逐漸升高鄧小平的政治象徵地位，相對地慢慢放下毛澤東的包袱，應是可以採行的過渡性作法。事實上，鄧小平以降的兩個梯隊的中共領導人，包括胡耀邦及趙紫陽等，已然相當程度地超越並跳脫了毛澤東的綑綁；未來中共欲進一步帶動黨及國家的轉型，最後必須一併解脫掉在形式上仍然存在的毛澤東束縛，這是一必經的過程，否則難以脫胎換骨。中共想在日漸民主化的中國社會尋求新生，恐怕早晚必須要過這一關。若不能否棄毛澤東的國家象徵地位，中共與中國轉型過渡的障礙始終存在。

中共及中國的轉型還有很長的路要走，舊包袱要慢慢地放下，新面貌要慢慢地形塑；當天安門城樓的毛像可以卸下的那一天，也許就是中共及中國政治轉型瀕近成功之日。

A Passing Grade on Typhoon Parma: But What About the Future?

A Passing Grade on Typhoon Parma: But What About the Future?
China Times News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 6, 2009

The 8/8 Flood taught us some painful lessons. Typhoon Parma has the Ma administration on tenterhooks. It mobilized in advance. Central and local governments are on full alert. President Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly stressed that his administration “prepared for any eventuality,” and that its defenses are “tight as a drum.” Judging by their performance over the past two days, disaster prevention measures by government at all levels have passed muster. Local governments and members of the public have for the most part cooperated by evacuating danger zones. The Ma administration’s clueless and inept behavior during Typhoon Morakot is hopefully a thing of the past.

Typhoon Parma did not result in disaster. Nevertheless it forced officials and civilians in threatened areas to run around in circles. The Yilan region in particular bore the brunt of the storm. The county government made four different announcements regarding school closures before finally getting it right. The main reason was that Typhoon Parma’s path was erratic. It was a “peculiar typhoon.”

Typhoon Parma was so peculiar, American, Japanese and our own weather services all found it difficult to track. Neither its path nor the amount of rainfall could be accurately predicted. According to typhoon reports issued by our own Central Weather Bureau over the weekend, Parma was downgraded to a standard typhoon on October 2. The radius of the typhoon however, increased from 200 kilometers to 250 kilometers, expanding its sphere of influence.

After Typhoon Parma battered Taiwan, it was affected by Typhoon Melor in waters surrounding the Philippine Islands. Typhoon Melor drew Typhoon Parma toward the Bashi Channel, where it hovered for a time, leading to a “Fujiwara Effect.” Melor repeatedly altered Parma’s path. It caused Parma to make a 180 degree about face, from northeast to southwest. Weather services in the Philippines were even worried that Parma might draw Melor back, to batter the Philippines a second time.

Another factor affecting Parma was a “combined effect,” leading to rainfall variations. Parma was clearly far to the south, in the Bashi Channel. Yet the heaviest rainfall was in Yilan, on the northern coast of Taiwan. The Bureau of Meteorology had to amend its forecast five times, a record in typhoon forecasting. Parma’s strange behavior inspired experts to characterize it as the most difficult to forecast typhoon so far this year.

Under the impact of climate change, Taiwan has experienced many “peculiar typhoons” in recent years. Last year’s Typhoon Sinlaku and Typhoon Kalmaegi were not super typhoons. But heavy rains led to disaster. Looking at the larger picture, the entire world faces dramatic climate change. In recent years some regions have received 50 or even 100 year record rainfalls. The Philippines, Vietnam, and Turkey have experienced major floods. Arid regions such as the Deccan Plateau in northern India have experienced major floods — even after the conclusion of the rainy season. Hurricane Katrina, which struck the US in 2005, was a major disaster seldom seen in North America.

Not long ago, Nature Magazine published a study by a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who said that the world is currently experiencing a once in a millennium “storm peak.” Global warming has not increased not merely the frequency of storms, but also their strength. Mankind faces an angry planet, whose anger has yet to fully erupt.

Nature is cruel, and its wrath unpredictable. Weather forecasting and disaster prevention systems in the twenty-first century face an unexpected challenge. As for Taiwan, the threat of typhoons looms especially large. Nearby Guam is an infamous Pacific Ocean “Typhoon nest.” Due to the earth’s rotational effect, most typhoons generated in this nest head towards Taiwan. People are therefore increasingly concerned about the accuracy of typhoon weather forecasts.

The accuracy of Central Weather Bureau typhoon forecasts has long been in dispute. The CWB’s explanations have seldom satisfied the public. The accuracy of its typhoon forecasts affects “typhoon holidays.” If CWB reports are inaccurate, if the standards are unclear, local governments don’t know whether to declare typhoon holidays. For years the sole criterion for typhoon holidays was wind strength. After years of urging from experts, it finally added rainfall volume, an even greater threat. Recently there have been calls to add landslide predictions forecasts. For mountain regions hard hit by mudslides, this is a necessary correction.

The government has been slow to invest in disaster prevention technology. For example since Typhoon Xangsane in 2000, it has become clear that rainfall is more and more often the cause of serious damage. But domestic rainfall measurement stations are too few and too unevenly distributed. Most stations are established by county and municipal governments. It was only early this year, that the CEPD approved one billion NT in funding for rainfall measurement station improvements, mainly in villages and towns. Increasing the density of rainfall measurement stations is long overdue.

The public has long been in the habit of criticizing the government for ineffectiveness in disaster prevention. But the public must increase its own understanding as well. For example, Typhoon Morakot finally forced people living in threatened areas to acknowledge the need for village relocation. Yet during Typhoon Parma some people in threatened areas still refused to leave. The government was forced to spend money and manpower helping them pile sandbags. Some mocked these efforts as useless. But if people don’t know enough to look after themselves, what gives them the right to waste precious public resources?

The government received a passing grade during Typhoon Parma. But what about in the future? Natural disasters never sleep. Heaven’s blessings are capricious. The blood and tears shed during natural disasters must be translated into lessons. They must be integrated into the system and into our lives. That is the only way to prepare for natural disasters.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.10.06
這次芭瑪颱風過關 但未來呢？
本報訊

經過八八風災的慘痛教訓，這次面對芭瑪颱風，馬政府上下繃緊神經，提早動員，從中央到縣市政府全面進入防颱備戰狀態，務求做到馬英九總統一再強調的「料敵從寬，禦敵從嚴」。從這兩天的結果看來，各級政府的防災動作還算到位，該撤離的危險區域，地方政府與民眾也多半能配合執行，馬政府終於不再像莫拉克颱風來襲時一般，全無章法，徹底失能。

不過，芭瑪雖未釀災，卻仍讓預警區內的政府及民眾手忙腳亂，尤其是首當其衝的宜蘭地區，為了是否停班停課，縣政府發布了四次新聞，才算全部搞定。主因就是，芭瑪行徑詭異，又是一個「怪颱」。

芭瑪之怪，讓美、日各國氣象單位都難以捉摸，它的路徑和雨量都「測不準」。根據我國中央氣象局上周末發布的颱風消息，芭瑪在十月二日減弱為中颱，但暴風半徑反而由二百公里增加到二百五十公里，影響範圍擴大。

而芭瑪侵台後，又受菲律賓海域上另一個強颱米勒的牽引、拉扯而在巴士海峽滯留踱步，徘徊不去，形成若有似無的「藤原效應」，一再影響芭瑪的路徑，使它一度出現由東北轉向西南的一八○度大轉變；而菲律賓氣象單位還擔心芭瑪是否會被米勒拉回去，二度侵菲。

另一個影響芭瑪的因素是「共伴效應」，主要反映在雨量變化，明明颱風遠在南邊的巴士海峽，但最大雨量落在宜蘭，氣象局連續上、下修正達五次之多，創歷年颱風預報僅見。這麼怪異的表現，使芭瑪被學者定義為今年至今最難預報的颱風。

在氣候變遷的影響下，台灣近年多次面臨「怪颱」，去年的辛樂克、卡玫基都不是強颱，但都因雨量超大而成災。放大範圍看，這幾年，全球都面臨劇烈氣候變異，動輒降下以五十年、甚至百年為頻率周期的大雨，菲律賓、越南、土耳其最近都出現大水災，連向來是乾旱地區的印度北部德干高原，都在雨季結束後出現大洪水，而二○○五年美國卡崔娜風災，更是北美洲少見的巨災。

不久前，《自然雜誌》刊登的一篇由美國賓州大學教授進行的研究指出，目前地球正處於千年一次的「風暴高峰期」，而全球暖化不但提高了風暴形成的頻率，也加驟其強度。人類面臨的是一個發怒的地球，而且怒氣顯然尚未完全爆發。

大地無情，天威難測，氣象預報與防災體系成為各國進入廿一世紀後一個始料未及的挑戰。對台灣而言，颱風的威脅尤其大；關島附近的太平洋海域是有名的「颱風窩」，因地球自轉效應，這個颱風窩生成的颱風，多會往台灣方向前進。因此國人愈來愈關心颱風氣象預報的準確與否。

但中央氣象局的颱風預報準頭，一直是一個爭議，氣象局的解釋和民眾的感受始終有極大落差。尤其，颱風預報準確與否，關係到放「颱風假」與否，如果氣象局報不準、標準不明，地方政府面對是否放颱風假時，就更感到為難。多年來，國內放颱風假的唯一標準是風力，學者呼籲多年後，總算加入威脅性更大的雨量，最近則出現應加入土石流預測的討論，對飽受土石流重創的山區而言，應是必要的修正。

在防災體系方面，政府對防災科技的整體投入與相關建置，仍慢了好幾拍。舉一例，從二○○○年的象神颱風開始，颱風因雨成災的趨勢就愈來愈明顯而劇烈，但國內的雨量測站不足、地點又分配不均，多是以縣市為設站規畫。直到今年初，經建會才通過十多億的經費，用於改善雨量測站設站問題，將落實到以鄉鎮為主，加強防災網格的密度。其實，這個工作早就應該進行了。

另一個需要指出的是，長久以來，社會習慣批評政府防災不力，但民眾的防災意識也要加強。譬如，莫拉克終於使危險地區的民眾認識到遷村的必要性。而在芭瑪颱風中，仍然有災區民眾不願撤離，政府只好出錢出力替他們堆沙包，但又有人站在旁邊譏諷「沒用啦」。自己不知保護自己，又憑什麼浪費社會國家資源呢？

這次面對芭瑪颱風，政府或許過關了，但未來呢？天災不會休止，天佑也不牢靠，歷次災難的血淚一定要化為教訓，落實到制度與生活中，才是防災之道。

The Problem is Factional Style, not Factions

The Problem is Factional Style, not Factions
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 5, 2009

After being out of power for eight years, the Kuomintang has finally regained power. But it now faces a serious crisis with its political support at the local level.

The KMT lost the Miaoli County legislative by-election, and the Yunlin County legislative by-election. Yunlin County Magistrate Chang Li-shan announced her withdrawal from the election. The KMT failed to win passage of its referendum on legalized gambling in Penghu. This was only the beginning. Factional infighting soon erupted in the Hualien, Taitung, Hsinchu, Nantou and Chiayi county elections. This is shaking the very foundations of the party, and its structure is in danger of collapse.

The Conventional Wisdom is that the problem is with “local factions.” But that is only half the answer. Democracies throughout the world must cope with local factions. Factions can actually help political integration. They can actually help the public evaluate party performance. The real problem is factional style, quality, and image. The faction headed by Chang Jung-wei, the “King of Yunlin,” is now ridiculted as “qing pu gong / zheng wan peng” (hogging everything for itself). Lin Ping-kun is the “King of Penghu.” What government and business interests stand behind his investments in the gaming industry? Voters have their doubts. The Chang/Lin merger crystalizes public perceptions of the KMT’s factional politics. Chang and Lin are both “non-partisan.” Yet they are able to hijack the KMT. Such factions are clearly tails wagging the dog.

In 2008 the central government experienced a change in ruling parties. The main reason Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party lost power was their handling of corruption and Taiwan independence. They lost the people’s trust. The KMT was presented with an opportunity to regain power. Now, however the KMT’s local political machine faces a test of legitimacy. Kuang Li-chen in Taitung, Fu Kuen-chi in Hualien, Chang Yung-wei in Yunlin, and Lin Ping-kun in Penghu all represent the same problem.

Why has the KMT’s local political machine broken into so many pieces? Let’s compare the KMT to the DPP. One. The DPP’s rise was due to national level political campaigns, to a strong, clear-cut political platform. Therefore its first and second generation political leaders have national level name recognition. They characterized themselves as “spokespersons for Taiwanese values.” By contrast, the KMT central government and local government have long been two separate worlds. Local political leaders have long been concerned only with the distribution of political benefits. Almost none of them are “spokespersons for Taiwan.” Almost none of them offer spiritual or ideological inspiration. They represent no political values, only the distribution of political benefits. This is one reason why the KMT finds it difficult to upgrade the quality of its local political leadership. Two. The DPP has national level political factions such as the Justice Alliance and the New Wave Faction. To a considerable extent, these national level political factions are able to moderate and control local factions. By contrast, today’s KMT lacks the ideological fervor to generate political factions. The party’s central leadership suppresses political factions, even as it remains incapable of restraining local factions. Three. The DPP’s political factions have a training function. For example, they help city and county council members to become national legislators, their assistants to become council members, national legislators to become county executives and city mayors, and their assistants to become national legislators. Local KMT factions, on the other hand, are predominantly family enterprises that help spouses or offspring run for office, or worse, allow the family to hog everything for itself. Therefore the problem is not factions, but factional style. The public has seen Wang Yu-yun and Yu Teng-fa style factions come and go. The Chang Jung-wei and Lin Ping-kun style factions will also eventually run their course.

Take Yunlin for example. The KMT can no longer consider Chang Jung-wei its spokesperson. By the same token, Chang Yung-wei is no longer the KMT’s political tool. This is not a question of who is willing to do business with whom. Society has evolved to the point where such games are no longer acceptable.

President Ma has assumed the party chairmanship. The central government is already stretched to its limits. It is in no position to deal effectively with the fragmentation of its local political machine. Chang Li-shan, Fu Kun-chi, and Kuang Li-chen are giving Ma headaches. Former Hualien and Hsinchu county executives have opposed the party’s primary candidates. As we can see, the KMT Central Committee is neither able to deter local political bosses, nor inspire the party leadership to do better. Chang Jung-wei is hardly alone. Anyone can confidently declare “I no longer want to do business with the party leadership.”

The KMT cannot eliminate local factions. But it should ask itself a fundamental question. Why are local DPP leaders, even low-ranking ones, afraid to criticize the mess Chen Shui-bian left behind, while simultaneously boasting that they represent “Taiwan’s values?” Why can’t bona fide, local KMT grass-roots leaders claim that they represent “Taiwan’s values” and “Taiwan’s spirit?” Why can’t they extricate themselves from their quagmire? Why are they content to do nothing except distribute benefits? When the KMT handles local disputes, why can’t it appeal to the voters on a higher level, and force local political bosses to back down? Why is even Chang Hui-yuan able to “campaign on behalf of his son” and hold the KMT leadership in utter contempt

Both are Taiwanese. So why are “DPP Taiwanese” more equal than “KMT Taiwanese?” This is a question for which the KMT has no answer. Even if it had an answer, it feels no urgency concerning the answer. But this is one of the most fundamental questions confronting the KMT, and one for which it must find an answer, sooner or later.

派系不是問題，問題在派系的風格
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.05 11:58 am

剛爭回喪失了八年中央執政權的國民黨，現正面臨地方根基動搖的嚴重危機。

輸掉苗栗立委補選，再輸掉雲林立委補選，雲林縣長提名候選人張麗善又宣布退選，澎湖博弈公投亦告失敗……。事情還沒完，花蓮、台東、新竹、南投及嘉義的縣長選舉皆出現分裂內訌……。根基動搖，大廈亦岌岌告危。

一般認為，問題出在「地方派系」。此說似只說對了一半。在全世界的民主政治中，地方派系皆不能免，且派系有助政治整合及政績的累積；所以，問題其實出在派系的風格、品質與形象。「雲林王」張榮味的派系，如今落得「青埔宮／整碗捧」的譏評，引起了選民的質疑；「澎湖王」林炳坤對博弈產業的投入，其背後的政商結構也使選民疑懼。而張、林二人的派系形象，可謂正是一般國人對國民黨地方派系的既成印象。何況，張、林皆是「無黨籍」，卻能挾制國民黨，可見派系已是尾大不掉。

二○○八年中央政權的政黨輪替，主要是因陳水扁的民進黨政權在貪腐失政及操作台獨上，失去了國人的信任；國民黨因而有了取而代之的機遇。現在眼前出現的問題則是：國民黨在地方政治上的正當性面臨了社會的考驗，從台東鄺麗貞、花蓮傅?萁、雲林張榮味到澎湖林炳坤，皆是同樣的課題。

為什麼國民黨的地方政治會出現這種四分五裂、捉襟見肘的現象？試與民進黨相較，探其隱微。一、民進黨崛起於全國性的政治運動，一直有強烈鮮明的政治號召，因而第一、二代的地方政治人物亦有全國性的知名度，皆以「台灣價值的代言人」自居；反觀國民黨，中央與地方幾乎一直是井水不犯河水的兩個世界，因而地方政治人物一向以利益分配為政治操作的主題，幾乎無人能在精神感召或意識形態上成為「台灣的代言人」。沒有政治號召的精神主題，只有利益分配，這是國民黨地方政治人物及地方派系難以提升的因素之一。二、民進黨內有全國性的「政治派系」（如正義連線、新潮流），相當程度地疏導及節制了「地方派系」；相對而言，國民黨的精神主題不足以分化出政治派系，黨中央亦壓制政治派系，卻無力節制地方派系。三、民進黨的「政治派系」亦有人才培訓的功能；例如：議員選上立委，助理即選議員；立委選上縣市長，助理即選立委。反觀國民黨，比較凸顯的印象是家族世襲，代夫出征、代子出征，甚至「青埔宮／全碗捧」。因而，派系不是問題，問題在於風格。王玉雲、余登發那類的派系，國人都眼看它樓起樓塌；張榮味、林炳坤之類的派系亦必有強弩之末的時候。

以雲林的例子來看，國民黨再也不能以張榮味為「代理人」，張榮味亦再也不能以國民黨為「政治工具」。這不是誰不跟誰玩的問題，而是社會發展至今日，已經不容許這樣的玩法。

馬英九總統兼黨主席，中央大局已是捉襟見肘，遑論有效處理分崩離析的地方政治。現在不只張麗善、傅?萁、鄺麗貞給他出難題，連花蓮及新竹縣也出現老縣長力挺否定初選者；可見，國民黨中央既無強人以威懾地方，又無精神號召或優異的中央政績以感召地方，何只張榮味，任何人皆可理直氣壯地宣示：「不跟黨中央玩下去！」這般情狀，如何了得？

國民黨不可能終結地方派系，但應當回頭問一個最根本的問題：為什麼民進黨的地方人物，不論什麼小蘿蔔頭，都敢不問陳水扁的爛攤子，而大言不慚地說：我代表台灣價值！而為什麼國民黨的真正草根地方人物卻不能說：我代表台灣價值，我代表台灣精神？為什麼不能從利益分配的泥淖中走出來？又為什麼國民黨在處理地方傾軋時，不能向選民訴諸一個更高遠的價值目標，使地方投機人物知難而退？以致連張輝元也敢玩「代子出征」，視黨中央如無物。

平平是台灣人，難道「國民黨的台灣人」不如「民進黨的台灣人」？這個問題很大，且現在也找不出答案，即使找出答案亦已無濟於燃眉之急。但是，這卻是一個最根本的問題，對國民黨而言，不找出答案不行。

Time for Mainland China to Do Away with Communist Sloganeering

Time for Mainland China to Do Away with Communist Sloganeering
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 2, 2009

Summary: On today’s Mainland China only the CCP remains committed to a “red sea” of giant statues and banners proclaiming “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The aesthetics and politics of the Beijing Olympics and the 10/1 celebration are still collectivist, and are still based on the “four cardinal principles.” By contrast, the Chinese civil society encompassing both sides of the Taiwan Strait shares the same view of democracy, freedom, and people’s livelihood. The Chinese Communist leaders’ next step must be self-liberation, specifically, the liberation of the mind. They must learn from the people. They must get close to the people. Only then can they can contribute to the transformation of the CCP and Mainland China.

Full Text below:

Recall the images from Beijing’s 10/1 celebration and the Beijing Olympic ceremonies. Now recall the images from the World Games in Kaohsiung and the Deaflympics in Taipei. The difference in style and mindset is unmistakable.

Beijing’s displays involve large masses of people. They stress order and collectivity. The synchronized placard displays of the Beijing Olympics spoke of peace. The troop review on 10/1 spoke of military might. But both were rooted in collectivism. By contrast, Taipei’s displays placed a greater emphasis on freedom and individuality. The “dian ying san tai zi” (electronic versions of three traditional Chinese demigods) during the World Games in Kaohsiung, and the “da bian zuo” (great roundtable) at the Deaflympics in Taipei were free and unconstrained. Their liberated nature spoke of ordinary people’s lives.

The Beijing Olympics and the 10/1 celebration were dazzling and majestic. The world was impressed. They underscored Mainland China’s three decades of achievements in reform and liberalization. But they failed to underscore the basic values that underpin a nation’s founding. Yesterday in Tiananmen Square, Hu Jintao repeated Mao Zedong’s statement: “The Chinese people have stood up!” In fact Mao Zedong never enabled “the Chinese people to stand up.” Deng Xiaoping and his successors, including Hu Jintao, enabled the Chinese people to stand up. Although some have become wealthy before others, the Chinese have indeed stood up. Unfortunately the Chinese people as a whole are still far from full freedom and democracy. Full liberation is still a long way off.

President Hu Jintao’s statement reiterated “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” But the Chinese Communist Party’s path today is utterly devoid of Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought. By Mao Zedong’s standards, all 1.3 billion Chinese are “capitalist roaders.” All of them should be paraded through the streets wearing dunce caps. In fact, so-called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” has only one purpose, as a pretext for maintaining the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party. This perhaps is a contingency measure the CCP and Mainland China must adopt during a period of transition. But it is not a long term solution.

The portion of President Hu Jintao’s speech with the most meat was the “liberation of the mind.” Could Chinese Communist leaders have achieved what they have today without first liberating their own minds? They liberated themselves from the bonds of “Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin.” They liberated themselves from “Mao Zedong Thought.” They liberated themselves from “Communist,” correction, “socialist” dogma. Had they not done so, they could hardly have accomplished what they have today. The next step is to liberate themselves from “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Only then can they achieve full democracy and freedom. Only then can Chinese Communist leaders achieve “true liberation.” Only then can the Chinese people as a whole achieve “true liberation.”

The public on Taiwan witnessed the razzle-dazzle of the Beijing Olympics, and the majesty of the 10/1 celebration. They can hardly disagree. China has indeed stood up. But the synchronized placard displays reduced the individual to atoms and cogs in a machine. As we watched crowds bearing giant statues, and a “red sea” of banners declaring allegiance to the state, we gained a deeper appreciation of how freedom and democracy differs from “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” In terms of military weaponry, the Republic of China government in Taipei is considerably weaker than the PRC government in Beijing. But in terms of freedom and democracy, the Taiwan Region is far better off than the Chinese Mainland.

The nation’s unity is not maintained by means of giant statues and slogans. A nation’s highest achievements are not missiles and tanks. The parades bearing giant statues and banners honoring “Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin” were once far longer. That was also when the standard of living was the lowest. Today’s achievements are the fruits of “reform and liberalization,” including the “liberation of the mind.” The CCP and Mainland China have just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PRC government. They should now shift their attention from giant statues and banners, to transforming the hearts and minds of the people, and to the adoption of democracy and freedom.

On today’s Mainland China only the CCP remains committed to a “red sea” of giant statues and banners proclaiming “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The aesthetics and politics of the Beijing Olympics and the 10/1 celebration are still collectivist, and are still based on the “four cardinal principles.” By contrast, the Chinese civil society encompassing both sides of the Taiwan Strait shares the same view of democracy, freedom, and people’s livelihood. The Chinese Communist leaders’ next step must be self-liberation, specifically, the liberation of the mind. They must learn from the people. They must get close to the people. Only then can they can contribute to the transformation of the CCP and Mainland China.

The Beijing Olympics and the 10/1 celebrations should have bolstered public confidence on Taiwan. Military confrontation is a thing of the past. The two sides are busy improving the people’s livelihood. Democracy and freedom has granted the Republic of China government on Taiwan a voice. Within the the framework of “One China, Different Interpretations,” the Republic of China’s democracy and freedom endow it with enormous authority. Departing from “One China, Different Interpretations” merely robs it of that authority.

中國何時走出巨像標語紅海洋？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.02 03:32 am

若以北京十一慶典及京奧場景，與高雄世運及台北聽奧的演示比較，可以發現海峽兩岸的思維與風格確有極大差異。

北京的節目，人多勢眾，強調格律與整體；不論是京奧用活字展現「和」，或閱兵用導彈展現「武」，皆是以「集體主義」為基調。相對而言，台灣的節目，比較強調自由與個性；不論是高雄世運的電音三太子，或台北聽奧的「大辦桌」，皆是自由奔放，皆在釋放性情與禮讚民生。

京奧的炫麗與十一的壯盛，令世人印象深刻；唯其景象雖然展現了中國大陸改革開放三十年來的成就，卻似在立國的基本思維上找不到落點。胡錦濤昨天在天安門上重複毛澤東的那句話：「中國人民站起來了！」其實，終毛澤東一生，他並未使「中國站起來」；現在，胡錦濤等繼鄧小平後，雖可謂已使「中國站起來」，但「中國人民」卻難謂也已「站起來了」。畢竟，雖然已使「一部分人先富起來」，但距使全體中國人民自由民主，完全解放，尚有很長很遠的努力空間。

胡錦濤昨日文告，仍以「有中國特色的社會主義」為基調。但是，盡人皆知，中共今日所走的路線，還有什麼「馬克思主義」？還有什麼「毛澤東思想」？倘依毛澤東的標準，今日十三億中國人誰人不是「走資派」？又何人不該戴尖帽子遊街示眾？其實，所謂的「有中國特色的社會主義」，如今只有一個效用，那就是做為堅持中國共產黨專政的口實；這或許是中共及中國轉型過渡不得不採行的權變方法，卻未必是可長可久的立國之道。

胡錦濤昨日演說中，最有血肉的一句話，就是「解放思想」。現今的中共，如果不是從「馬／恩／列／斯」的綑綁中「解放」出來，如果不是從「毛澤東思想」中「解放」出來，如果不是從「共產主義（已改稱社會主義）」教條中「解放」出來，豈可能有今日的成就？下一步，應當即是要從「有中國特色的社會主義」中「解放」出來。如此，直到有了完全的民主自由，中共自己始能得到「真解放」，全體中國人亦始能得到「真解放」。

對於台灣人來說，看京奧的炫麗與十一的壯盛，不免也有「中國崛起」的感思。但是，穿透那種將每一個人徹底原子化、機器化的「真人動畫」；穿透那種眾人抬著巨像、標語宣示效忠奉獻的「紅海洋」；卻也能深刻感受真正的民主自由與「有中國特色的社會主義」的差異所在。就國家武備而言，台灣也許未必那麼強大；但是，若就每一個人民享有的自由民主言，台灣卻遠逾於中國大陸。

國家的最高維繫，不在巨像與標語；國家的最高成就，亦不在導彈與坦克。中國大陸早年巨像與標語的隊伍更長，包括「馬／恩／列／斯」在內，那卻是民生水準最為慘痛的年代；能有今日成就，自是緣自「改革開放」，亦是緣自「解放思想」。跨越建政六十周年以後，中共及中國皆應立志於將立國的根基，從巨像標語，移植到民主自由的人心上。

今日中國大陸，只有中共最致力於維持由巨像、標語、紅海洋所支撐的「有中國特色的社會主義」；因而，不論京奧或十一的演示所呈現的美學與哲學，仍是集體主義與「四個堅持」。但是，在兩岸民間社會，對於民主、自由及人生或民生的美學或哲學，卻幾乎已經全無差異；未來的發展方向，應是中共自我解放、解放思想，向民間學習，向民間靠攏，如此始能促成中共與中國的過渡與轉型。

經過京奧與十一的激盪，台灣方面更應相信，軍事的對抗應當過去，民生的相互提升正在進行，而民主自由始是台灣最珍貴的「話語權」。台灣的民主自由，在「一中各表」中存有極大的能量；唯若離開「一中各表」的架構，台灣民主自由的能量恐失憑藉。

1949: Catastrophe or Blessing for Taiwan?

1949: Catastrophe or Blessing for Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
October 1, 2009

Since 1949 the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been under divided rule. According to the rhetoric of Taiwan independence, 1949, the year the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan, was the beginning of a catastrophe. But from an historical perspective, the larger meaning of 1949 was that Taiwan did not become part of the Peoples Republic of China.
If the Republic of China government had not moved to Taiwan, Taiwan would have inevitably become a province of the People’s Republic of China. If so, Taiwan’s landlords would have been purged. Taiwan’s intellectuals would have been subjected to rightist rectification. Taiwan’s streets and alleys would have been filled with backyard steel furnaces. Peoples’ communes would have served “da guo fan” meals filled with sand and rocks. Students would have taken to the streets wearing the red armbands of Red Guards. People stigmatized as the “Five Black Categories” would have been paraded through the streets as demons. 1949 ensured that Taiwan did not go down this road, but instead went down a different road than the Chinese mainland for the next 60 years.

1949 has long been a taboo subject on Taiwan. For example, it was obviously a major rout. Yet it is described as a “transfer.” Because of these taboos, politicians each use their own biased framework to interpret the events of 1949. The general public has never given much thought to the meaning of 1949, but 60 years later, some people are determined to restore the truth about 1949. They include Chi Pang-yuan, in her book “Ju Liu He” and Lung Ying-tai, in her book “Da Jiang Da Hai.” Some scholars have attempted to initiate an academic debate. They are asking whether 1949 a catastrophe or blessing for Taiwan.

If one wishes to be glib and split the difference, one can it was a blessing plagued by catastrophes, or a catastrophe rich with blessings. But viewed from the perspective of history, 1949 ensured that Taiwan would not become part of the PRC. It was not merely a blessing for the Taiwan region, it was a blessing for China as a whole. Without 1949, the Chinese-speaking world would not have a directly-elected president. It would not have a free and democratic Republic of China, capable of successfully prosecuting a former president for crimes against society. The continued survival of the Republic of China on Taiwan since 1949 spared Taiwan three decades of catastrophe, beginning with the Three Antis, Five Antis Campaigns and ending with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It made possible today’s environment of freedom and democracy.

A few years before 1949, there was talk of “KMT/CCP Divided Rule Across the [Yangzi] River.” Had that come to pass, Taiwan would have been the rear echelon. It would not have been spared the consequences of bloody KMT vs. CCP warfare. The KMT retreated to Taiwan and severed all connections with the Communist regime. That is why Taiwan was able to hold out until today. Today this side of the Strait is holding presidential elections, and the other side is undergoing reform and liberalization. During these 60 years Taiwan also experienced catastrophes, including the 2/28 Incident and the White Terror. But seen in proportion, within the framework of history, 1949 was overwhelmingly a blessing for Taiwan. Without 1949, today’s Taiwan would never have emerged.

To this day, Taiwan remains mired in debates over whether 1949 was a catastrophe or a blessing. Those who insist it was nothing but a catastrophe have their own terminology. They refer to Japan’s surrender as the “Cessation of Conflict.” They refer to Mainlanders as “Chinese pigs,” who “invaded Taiwan” in 1949 and brought with them an “alien regime.” They refer to the “Republic of China” as a “government in exile,” one which mired Taiwan in a civil war from which it cannot escape. Those who consider 1949 a blessing on the other hand, remind us that 1949 spared Taiwan from the Red Terror. The Cold War era anti-Communist defense of Taiwan depended upon the Republic of China’s military and diplomatic struggles against the Chinese Communist regime. This struggle included the 8/23 Artillery Battle. The post-Cold War lifting of martial law by the Republic of China implemented full democracy and made possible calls for “peaceful development” with Beijing.

Those who consider 1949 a blessing are not prettifying it. They have learned painful lessons from defeat. The overarching framework of “divided government on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait” deserves affirmation, for providing an historic opporunity for Taiwan. On the other hand, those who insist that 1949 was an unmitigated catastrophe, compel themselves to repudiate the past 60 years in toto. To them, even the Republic of China belongs to the Kuomintang, not to “Taiwanese.” They make it impossible for themselves to acknowledge the true meaning of the past 60 years on Taiwan.

As a result of 1949, Taiwan experienced much suffering. But as a result of 1949, Taiwan also received many blessings. 1949 was a catastrophe and blessing for China as a whole as well. Over the past 60 years, the Mainland has emerged, through rivers of blood, from Communist dogma. Taiwan has achieved freedom and democracy, becoming an example for Beijing to emulate. The two sides have emerged from a struggle to the death, and are now walking side by side toward “peaceful development.” If not for 1949, we would not have experienced the past 60 years. We would not be where we are today.

一九四九年：台灣的苦難或恩典？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.01 04:46 am

兩岸自一九四九年分裂分治已六十周年。就台獨的論述言，一九四九年是台灣災難的開端，因中華民國中央政府在這一年撤遷來台；但從大歷史觀而論，一九四九年更重要的意義是：這一年決定了台灣沒有成為中華人民共和國的一部分。

如果中華民國中央政府當年未撤遷來台，則台灣成為中華人民共和國的一個行省，是必然的結局。倘係如此，台灣今天也早已經歷了地主掃地出門，知識分子反右整風，街巷裡的土高爐燒得火紅，人民公社裡的大鍋飯摻沙摻石，年輕學生以戴上紅臂章的紅衛兵為榮，四處皆見被戴上紙紮高帽子遊街的黑五類及牛鬼蛇神……。一九四九年，決定了台灣沒有走上這一條路，而走上六十年來與中國大陸不同的另一條路。

一九四九年在台灣一向是一個社會禁忌話題。例如，明明是大敗逃，卻說是「轉進」；由於此類禁忌，不同的政治人物各自以偏頗的理念來解釋及操作一九四九，一般人民亦從未對一九四九進行深思。然而，在六十年後的今日，漸有較多的有心人設法還原一九四九，如齊邦媛的《巨流河》與龍應台的《大江大海》，並有一些學者嘗試啟動一項學術討論；大意是：一九四九是台灣的苦難或恩典？

如果想要媚俗地調和雙方歧見，不妨說：這是帶著苦難的恩典，或帶著恩典的苦難。然而，若從大歷史的宏觀角度來看，一九四九年決定了台灣沒有成為中華人民共和國的一部分，這非但是台灣的恩典，也是中國的恩典。沒有一九四九年，就沒有今天華人世界唯一能直選總統、並對犯罪的總統判刑的自由民主國家中華民國。持平而論，中華民國在一九四九年賴台灣始能延續，而台灣則因中華民國而免於「三十年浩劫」（自三反五反至文化大革命），並能臻至今日自由民主的境地。

一九四九前幾年，曾有「國共隔江分治」的議論；但若隔江而治，台灣就成了大後方，仍然不能免於國共面對面的肉搏。正因完全撤到台灣，與共產政權完全切割，台灣始有可能將情勢撐持到今日「這邊直選總統／那邊改革開放」的境地。當然，台灣在這六十年來的過程中，亦曾歷經苦難（二二八、白色恐怖），但若就大比例的歷史觀而論，一九四九對台灣應當主要是一個恩典。沒有一九四九年，就沒有今日的台灣。

一直到今天，台灣其實仍然陷於「一九四九年是苦難或恩典」的分歧之中。持「災難說」者認為：「終戰」後外省人（現在成了中國豬）侵入台灣，一九四九帶來了「外來政權」，「中華民國」是「流亡政府」，使台灣深陷國共內戰而不能跳脫；持「恩典論」者則認為，一九四九使台灣未陷赤禍，冷戰時代反共保台，靠「中華民國」與中共的政權進行軍事及外交鬥爭（八二三砲戰），後冷戰時代的中華民國則正好解嚴而實現了完全的民主政治，又能與中共政權爭取到「和平發展」的立足點。

「恩典論」並未美化一九四九，卻願從失敗與痛苦中，對「兩岸分裂分治」這個大架構為台灣生機創造的歷史大機遇給予肯定。相對而言，持「災難說」者欲否定一九四九的轉折，就很容易自陷於「必須完全否定這六十年」的邏輯陷阱；對「災難說」而言，既然連「中華民國」都是「國民黨的」，而不是「台灣人的」，將如何建立這六十年對台灣的正面意義？

本文的觀點是：台灣因一九四九而承受相當的苦難，但台灣也因一九四九而獲得了重大恩典。不僅如此，一九四九年對中國也是苦難與恩典的化合物。六十年來，大陸從山河血淚中走出了共產主義教條，台灣則實現了自由民主，並成為北京新思維的範本，兩岸亦由你死我活走向「和平發展」；如果沒有一九四九，沒有這六十年，就不會有今天。

1949: Shattering the Myth of Winner Takes All

1949: Shattering the Myth of Winner Takes All
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
September 30, 2009

Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. In two years, it will be the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China.
1949 was the beginning of divided rule across the Taiwan Strait. The 1949 Civil War marked fact the conclusion of the domestic and foreign troubles that have plagued China since the Opium War of 1840. Among these was the 1912 showdown between the monarchy and the republic. The republic won, only to be plagued by more domestic and foreign troubles. It won a costly victory over Japan. In 1949, capitalism had a showdown iwth communism. The Communist regime occupied the mainland, and the Kuomintang regime retreated to Taiwan.

In essence, 1949 was about military victory and defeat. The KMT’s “Three People’s Principles” and the CCP of the “Communism” were basically window dressing for a military struggle. The KMT’s yet to be implemented “democracy” and the CCP’s “Communism” were merely superficial features of the student movement, the labor movement, and demands for the “killing of landlords, and the division of their land.” The victory or defeat of the KMT and CCP had little to do with the right and wrong of their “isms.” At the time these “isms” were mere slogans. The main reason for the KMT’s military defeat was that it was the ruling government of a nation in ruins from endless war, beginning with the Opium War and ending with the Second Sino-Japanese War. The sole task of the CCP, on the other hand, was rebellion.

The struggle between the KMT and the CCP did involve “isms.” Their respective battle cries had to do with the question, “Whither China?” The military struggle determined victory and defeat. But it did not determine right and wrong between rival “isms.” Ironically, the issue of right and wrong can be seen far more clearly 60 years later.

In fact, the Communists of Mao Zedong’s generation never really understood what communism was. They had only a crude understanding of communism, or else deliberately distorted its meaning. The founding of the People’s Republic of China government was followed by the Three Antis, Five Antis Campaigns, the Anti-Rightist Rectification Campaign, the Three Red Flags Movement (The General Line, the Great Leap Forward, and the People’s Communes), and finally by the decade long debacle known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Was this really the meaning of Communism? Was this really how the Communist Party won the war against the KMT in 1949?

Winning does not make one a hero. Winning does not make one right. The Kuomintang lost the mainland for many reasons. For that it must take responsibility. It cannot shift all the blame onto the chaos that began with the Opium War and ended with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Besides, the Kuomintang made more mistakes on Taiwan, including the 2/28 Incident and the White Terror. But it also racked up an impressive record of achievements. These include democracy and the rule of law, direct presidential elections, changes in the ruling party, the criminal prosecution of a former president, and 60 years of free markets. This was the political and economic realm several generations of Chinese sought to achieve since the Opium War, the Self-Strengthening Movement, the Kang Youwei/Liang Qichao Reform Movement of 1898, the 1911 Revolution, the June 4th Movement, and the Chinese Civil War. The Taiwan region achieved free markets at least 30 years before the mainland. The Taiwan region lifted martial law and established democracy at least 20 years before the mainland. Moreover, during the past 60 years the Taiwan region has been on the track towards “progressive democracy.” The mainland on the other hand, still has no timetable for the popular election of city mayors and county executives.

Some may say that the Taiwan region is too small. Its achievements count for little. But Singapore is small. Switzerland is small. Moreover, Taiwan’s plight for the past 60 years has been difficult. Yet it was able to achieve freedom and democracy. Winning does not make one a hero. Being small does not make one wrong.

Sixty years ago, we decided between military victory and defeat. Sixty years later, we are deciding between political and economic right and wrong. The Beijing regime is now known in the Western world as an “enlightened despotism.” For the CCP this is real progress. Homemade blast furnaces do not equal “Mr. Science,” and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariate” does not equal “Mr. Democracy.” Today those most able to help the Chinese people stand on their own two feet are not Mao Tse-tung’s “class struggle” Communists. They are not the Communists who defeated the Kuomintang in 1949 by means of military force. They are Deng Xiaoping and the two generations of Communists who succeeded him. They are the Communists whose political and economic path more and more resembles that of the Taiwan region. In 1949 the KMT and CCP engaged in a life and death struggle over “isms.” Today they are moving along the same track towards political democracy and economic freedom. The only difference is that the Taiwan region is a few steps ahead of the mainland. Furthermore, one can safely assert that Beijing must move increasingly toward democracy and freedom. It must increasingly relax its “Four Cardinal Principles.” Only then can it truly undergo a “peaceful rise.”

1949 was a long time ago. Today cross-Strait issues can no longer be resolved militarily. Internal and cross-Strait issues must be resolved in accordance with the principles of democracy and freedom. If Beijing believes cross-Straits issues are Chinese issues, then it can no longer use military force to determine victory or defeat. It must invoke democracy and freedom to determine right and wrong. By the same token, the public on Taiwan must be realize that when the Taiwan region implements democracy and freedom, its political and economic achievements provide a frame of reference for the whole of China. Taiwan can relate to the mainland on the basis of “neither reunification nor independence / both reunification and independence.” It can relate to the mainland on the basis of an “ism,” rather than the use of force. Taiwan independence, paradoxically, is the worst possible political strategy.

Tomorrow is the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. The aspect most worth celebrating is the metamorphosis of “Mao Zedong’s Communist Party” into “Deng Xiaoping’s Communist Party.” Democracy and freedom have replaced Communist dogma in cross-Strait relations. The time has come to determine right and wrong, and renounce the use of force.

一九四九年：打破成王敗寇的迷思
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.09.30 04:26 am

明天是中華人民共和國建國六十周年；再過兩年，則是中華民國建國一百周年。

一九四九年，是兩岸分裂分治的開始。一九四九年的國共內戰，其實是一八四○年鴉片戰爭以降中國內憂外患的總結；其中，一九一二年是帝制與共和的對決，共和勝；接下來是內外交煎的民國，苦苦撐持至對日抗戰慘勝，到了一九四九年，則出現民主資本主義與共產主義的對決，結果共產黨政權席捲大陸，國民黨政權撤至台灣。

一九四九年在本質上是軍事鬥爭的勝敗。當年，國共雙方的「三民主義」與「共產主義」在大體上只是裝飾軍事鬥爭的口號；國民黨未行「民主」，共產黨的「共產主義」也只是學運、工運，與「殺地主／分田地」的皮毛而已。國共的勝敗，其實不在「主義」的是非正誤，因為當時兩邊的「主義」皆只是「標語」；主要的勝敗因素在於：國民黨是被鴉片戰爭至抗日戰爭蹂躪得不成形狀的中國之主政者，而共產黨當年唯一的任務就是叛變。

不過，當年國共鬥爭用於號召全民的真正主題，卻是「主義」，也就是「中國何處去」的問題。軍事鬥爭雖分出勝敗，然未在「主義」上分出是非。這個大是大非，反而在六十年後的今天看得比較清楚。

其實，毛澤東一輩的共產黨員，根本不知道什麼是共產主義，或是粗識共產主義而惡意誤用了共產主義。中華人民共和國建政後，三反、五反、反右整風、三面紅旗（總路線、大躍進、人民公社），接著又是十年浩劫文化大革命；試問：這就是共產主義嗎？共產黨在一九四九年就是憑著這樣的共產主義而贏得了國共戰爭嗎？

勿以勝敗論英雄，勿以勝敗論是非。國民黨政權失去大陸當然有諸多必須自負的責任，而不能全盤歸諸「自鴉片戰爭至抗日戰爭」云云，且國民黨在台主政也有二二八及白色恐怖等汙點；但是，現今的台灣在民主法治上的成就，如直選總統、如政黨輪替、如法院對犯罪的總統判刑，以及六十年來始終以自由經濟為主軸，這卻不啻是大致體現了自鴉片戰爭以來，從自強、變法、辛亥革命、五四運動到國共內戰，中國幾代人物所追求的政經境界。台灣在實現自由經濟上較大陸改革開放至少早了三十年，在解嚴實現全盤徹底的民主政治上則至今已早了二十一年，何況六十年來台灣皆在「漸進民主」的軌道上，而大陸連民選縣市長亦尚不知在何年何日。

也許有人說，台灣這麼小，不算什麼；但是，新加坡小，瑞士也小；何況，台灣六十年來的處境如此窘促艱難，卻能實現自由民主。不因勝敗論英雄，當然更不能因形體大小論是非。

六十年前見軍事勝負，六十年後論政經是非。北京政權現在被西方世界喻為「開明專制」，這是中共極大的進步。畢竟，土高爐不是「賽先生」，「無產階級專政」也不是「德先生」。今天真正可能使「中國人民站起來」的不是毛澤東那一批「以階級鬥爭為綱」的共產黨，亦即不是一九四九年以武力打敗國民黨那一批共產黨；而是鄧小平及其後兩個梯隊的共產黨，也就是政經腳步愈來愈像台灣的這個共產黨。一九四九年因「主義」分歧而你死我活的國共兩黨，如今卻皆在朝往政治民主及經濟自由的同一軌道上。只是，在這個方向上、路線上，台灣畢竟比大陸領先了好幾步；而且，應可斷言，北京必須愈來愈朝向民主自由，愈來愈鬆綁「四個堅持」，始有可能真正「和平崛起」。

一九四九年已遠，時至今日，兩岸關係愈發不可能用軍事解決，而必須用民主自由的法則來解決各自內部的問題及兩岸的問題。如果北京方面仍認為兩岸問題是「中國問題」，就不能再以武力論勝敗，而必須用民主自由來論是非。相對而言，台灣方面亦應自覺，當台灣落實民主自由的政經成就，能成為整個中國的參考架構，台灣始可能在兩岸關係中維持「不統不獨／亦統亦獨」，並找到不以武力而以「主義」立足的利基，台獨反而是台灣最脆弱的政治戰略。

中華人民共和國建國六十周年，最值得慶幸的是「毛澤東的共產黨」蛻變為「鄧小平的共產黨」；兩岸關係也因民主自由的思潮取代了共產主義教條，而到了應當訴諸是非、不可訴諸武力的時候。

Detention Law Reform vs. Solidarity with Ah-Bian

Detention Law Reform vs. Solidarity with Ah-Bian
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 29, 2009

The High Court continues to detain former President Chen Shui-bian. It has cited three reasons: He is a flight risk, he would destroy evidence, and he has been convicted of a felony. Chen Shui-bian has filed suit against U.S. President Barack Obama, demanding that the United States Military Government in Taiwan intervene and demand his release. He is arguing that during his administration he frequently acted on orders from the American Institute in Taiwan, therefore he should be considered an official of the United States government.
When the public learned of this development, they were incredulous that Chen Shui-bian, a former head of state, would go so far to free himself from custody. They had trouble believing he would take such an unwise action and trample the dignity of the Republic of China, a sovereign and independent nation. They could not understand the logic behind his claim that a US military court should exercise its jurisdiction and demand his release. Ah-Bian’s overseas legal move merely makes the High Court’s decision to keep him in custody for another three months, for fear that he might be a flight risk, seem more reasonable than ever.

To be fair, regardless of how ridiculous Chen’s idea might be, the court should not detain him merely because he is disrespectful. Is he being detained because he has been found guilty of a felony and handed a life sentence? Is continued detention under the Code of Criminal Procedures consistent with the constitution? There is room for discussion. This has universal relevance, and is not something relevant only to Ah-Bian. The pre-trial detention system is overdue for comprehensive review. Is Chen being detained because he has hidden large sums of money overseas and may destroy evidence? Defendants have no legal obligation to provide evidence of their own guilt. Therefore this ruling is questionable. Concerns that Ah-Bian has squirreled large sums of money overseas, and therefore may be a flight risk, are consistent with common sense. Now Ah-Bian is appealing to Uncle Sam for help. Once he is released, might he seek political asylum at the American Institute in Taipei, and make it difficult to continue legal proceedings? That is actually a easier scenario for the court to imagine. If Chen Shui-bian wants to avail himself of another nation’s judicial processes in order to evade prosecution, that is his right. But if he expects America to rescue him, he is indulging in wishful thinking, and will only make it more difficult for the courts on Taiwan to believe he is not a flight risk. He is merely shooting himself in the foot.

His politically foolish and morally unscrupulous moves will only make it more difficult for him to win public sympathy. The Democratic Progressive Party’s response to Ah-Bian’s folly will also test its political wisdom. Not long ago, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen demanded a meeting with Lai Ying-chao, President of the Judicial Yuan. He turned her down. She then demanded his resignation. This was another breach of protocol that ought to be examined.

When the Chairman of the DPP demanded a meeting with the President of the Judicial Yuan, she boasted that she represented millions of people. She said “I am not just any passerby.” She said her request should not be rejected. But what was the purpose of her demand for a meeting? The public knows only too well that it was to demand an immediate Grand Justice ruling on the constitutionality of Chou Chan-chun and Tsai Shou-hsung’s review of the Chen corruption case. The Grand Justice’s ruling would have a direct bearing on whether the local court was legal, and whether its ruling in the Chen corruption case was valid. The largest opposition party banged on the door of the Judicial Yuan, demanding a hearing. It demanded a constitutional interpretation on an ongoing case pertaining to Chen Shui-bian. The DPP claim that it was not interfering with the administration of justice convinces no one. In fact, it is hardly the only case that would have be made vulnerable to judicial interference.

The President of the Judicial Yuan politely refused to meet with the Chairman of the DPP, as was his right. Society expects judicial independence. President Lai’s refusal to meet with Chairman Tsai, on the grounds of judicial independence, was proper and wise. The Chairman of the DPP is the one who deserves to be criticized for lacking restraint and exceeding her brief.

The Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party President is not just any passerby. That is precisely why the Judicial Yuan must avoid the perception that political parties have hijacked the justice system. Otherwise one is merely repeating the same mistake made by the Kuomintang in the past, when it “owned the courts.” Otherwise the DPP is merely calling the KMT black. DPP leaders have explicitly declared that their preeminent concern is the defense of human rights, that they are not merely trying to cover for Chen Shui-bian. The public is having trouble believing them, because recently every one of the DPP’s human rights demands has revolved around the Chen corruption case. The DPP is working in lockstep with the Chen defense team. The public sees no effort on the part of the Democratic Progressive Party to improve human rights per se.

Over the past two years, over 10,000 people have been subject to pretrial detention. Close to that number have been detained this year alone. Over 3,000 people are currently being held in detention centers. Many have been detained merely because they were charged with a felony, or might collude with others to falsify their testimony. How many people besides Ah-Bian are being detained for all three reasons at the same time? The DPP expresses solidarity only with Chen Shui-bian. It gives no thought to demanding changes in the system of detention. That is why the public sees through its human rights lip service.

Chen Shui-bian enjoys freedom of expression. He has the right to denounce the justice system and run crying to a foreign government. What we want to know is whether the Democratic Progressive Party feels any political or moral obligation to uphold our national dignity?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.29
社論－推動修改羈押法制 比聲援扁更有意義
本報訊

高等法院以虞逃、滅證及重罪三個理由續押前總統陳水扁。陳水扁則於美國訴請美國總統歐巴馬啟動在台的美國軍事法庭介入，讓他解除羈押；理由是扁在位期間常依美國在台協會指示行事，因此應將之視為美國人員。

國人聆此消息，除了難以置信曾經擔任過國家元首的陳水扁，為了免受羈押而竟出此下策，踐踏台灣做為主權獨立國家的尊嚴一至於此以外，恐也不能理解他向美國主張藉由美國軍事法庭行使管轄權以及使他獲得釋放的法理邏輯。但是，扁的海外法律行動，卻已使得台灣高等法院以其有逃亡之虞而續押三個月的決定，似乎有了更多的支持理由。

平情而論，不論扁的主張有多荒謬，法院都不應只憑他是否對法庭態度恭謹而決定是否應該續行羈押。若是以他身犯已受無期徒刑宣判之重罪罪嫌為由續行羈押來看，所根據的刑事訴訟法重罪羈押的規定是否合憲，很有討論餘地，但這是一個通案問題而非扁的特殊遭遇，本該在審前羈押制度上全盤的檢討。以扁尚有鉅款隱匿海外認為是湮滅證據而予以續押的事由，恐怕也令因為被告在法律上並無提供自己有罪證據的義務而仍有見仁見智的商榷。海外尚有鉅款成為法院擔心扁會潛逃的動機，並非不符一般常識，現在扁的訴狀以美國山姆大叔為求救對象，一旦釋放可以躲入在台協會尋求政治庇護，形成訴訟難以進行，反而是法院不難想像的場景。陳水扁想要訴諸何國的司法程序以求脫困，那是他的權利，但他一廂情願越海投美救援之舉，使得其在台灣的法院中更難令人相信絕無逃亡企圖，似乎是個自搬磚頭砸腳的錯誤。

在政治道德愚不可及而又寡廉鮮恥的表現，當然更難獲得社會的同情；民進黨對於扁的愚行採取何種政治態度，也就備受政治智慧何在的質疑與考驗。不久前民進黨主席蔡英文求見司法院院長遭拒，呼籲賴英照院長辭職，則是另一個觸犯禁忌而應受檢驗的政黨舉措。

民進黨主席自稱代表數百萬民眾求見司法院院長，「我不是路人甲」，不應遭到拒絕，必須追問其求見的目的；眾所周知，此舉是為了要求司法院大法官儘速針對陳水扁方面聲請大法官針對周占春審理之扁案併入蔡守訓審理之案有無違憲做出解釋有關。大法官的解釋，可能直接關係到地方法院扁案審判庭組成是否合法、扁案判決是否有效的問題。第一大在野黨為此到司法院敲門求見，不但關係聲請釋憲的個案！也關係到陳水扁正在進行的司法審判，號稱不是要干預個案，說服力有限；此中可能受到干預的司法個案，其實不只一個。

司法院院長在禮貌接見與拒絕求見之間，應該有所選擇，這是思考司法獨立社會觀感必須謹慎的所在。賴院長決定以司法獨立為由拒見，是一個正確而且明智的決定。應該受到批判的，反而是不知節制，忘記政黨分寸的民進黨主席。

正因為民進黨主席不是路人甲，所以應該避免挾政黨努力駕凌司法的惡劣觀感，否則恐與當年國民黨自翊經營法院的錯誤，只是五十步與百步之比而已。民進黨口口聲聲是以人權保障為出發，不是為了陳水扁個人。所以難引起國人共鳴，是因為近期以來，所有的相關人權訴求，都只是圍繞著扁的個案打轉，與扁的個案策略呼應起舞，完全看不到民進黨有任何為改善人權制度而努力的行動。

別的不說，過去兩年，審判羈押的總人數都已超過萬人，今年亦已逼近此數，現在正在看守所中受到羈押者也在三千人以上；此中只因重罪或是串證之虞而遭到羈押者，大有人在，像扁一樣同時因有三個理由而遭羈押的究有幾人？民進黨單單聲援阿扁，卻不思推動修改羈押法制的途徑，會不會讓人在人權訴求上看破手腳？

陳水扁自有罵司法、告洋狀的言論自由與訴訟權，但我們要問的是，民進黨對於呵護台灣的尊嚴有沒有什麼應盡的政治道德責任？

Rid the KMT of Factions, Now

Rid the KMT of Factions, Now
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 28, 2009

What does winning or losing an election mean? A single legislative seat? Or whether casinos will be built in a particular electoral district? On September 26, Yunlin held legislative by-elections and Penghu held a referendum on whether to legalize gambling. As it turned out, the KMT vote was split in the legislative by-elections, allowing the DPP nominee to ease himself into office. The results of the referendum, on the other hand, were contrary to expectations. Social movements staunchly opposed to legalized gambling prevented passage of the the referenda. Because most KMT officials supported legalization of gambling in Penghu, these local votes were characterized as “setbacks for the KMT,” or even the “Ma administration’s loss of power.”

Based purely on the vote counts, the legislative seats, as well as the KMT’s policy proposals, these inferences would be correct. But if one examines these two local votes at a deeper level, we may need to redefine victory and defeat.

Take the Yunlin legislative by-election. The by-election was necessary because the KMT candidate was declared ineligible following his conviction for bribery. KMT candidates in Yunlin must almost always accede to the demands of local factions. Toward the end of the Lee Teng-hui era, these local factions both depended on the KMT, and fed on the KMT. They have undergone very little change. Eventually they contributed to the downfall of the Lee Teng-hui regime, making it synonymous with “black gold.” During the eight years since the change in ruling parties, some of these local factions have switched their allegiance to the DPP. Chiayi County has broken out of the stranglehold of these local factions. But most regions have changed little. They may be dependent on the KMT or independent candidates, but they are always making deals. These local political bosses are always hijacking the elections to maintain their local political and economic power base. Meanwhile, they eat away at the KMT. Yunlin County is a typical example. It is always Chang Jung-wei. It is always the Yunlin Irrigation Association. It is aways a case of “Meet my demands or I will back the DPP!” Chang Jung-wei definitely has power. His power, however, is always in the service of Chang Jung-wei. The Yunlin Irrigation Association is a local network cultivated by the KMT. But it is not that different from the Chang Jung-wei faction. For them, the KMT’s raison d’etre is to ensure that the Chang Jung-wei faction or the Yunlin Irrigation Association does not fall.

These factions should change with the times in order to meet the needs of the people. They should establish clean government. If they were to do so, they would not constitute a problem. Unfortunately these local politicians who depend upon local factions for their survival, all play by the same old rules of the game. It makes no difference how well educated they may be, or how impressive their resume might look. Are the candidates unwilling to buy votes? No problem, the local political bosses who support them will do the buying for him. Is the candidate’s son unwilling to buy votes? No problem, I’ll buy votes for him. The local election system treats voters like idiots. Is it any wonder it suffered a defeat?

The Yunlin by-election has gained the DPP one more legislative seat. The impact of this one seat on the legislature is not that significant. The KMT still commands an overwhelming majority in the Legislative Yuan. The DPP is still a long way off from having enough seats to force a presidential recall. On the other hand, local factions now have the DPP in a stranglehold. The DPP would have been better off stiffening its resolve and declaring “honor before riches!” Ma Ying-jeou made just such a declaration during the controversy over the Hualien County party primaries. During the Yunlin County legislative by-election he demonstrated quiet determination, from beginning to end.

The Penghu referendum pertained to the legalization of gambling. Penghu’s local politics are not as distinctive as Yunlin’s. But neither is it that different. In the end, there is only the “King of Penghu.” The local officials who surround the King of Penghu all sing the same tune. They want casinos. They began lobbying for casinos during the Lee Teng-hui era. During the eight year long Ah-Bian administration. these local politicians who depend upon the KMT, were miraculously able to gain the support of DPP heavyweights. Even former Vice President Annette Lu took the time out to make an inspection tour. But controversy over the casino has been too great. It has been repeatedly debated for over 10 years. But no one has been able to bring it to fruition.

President Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign platform endorsed casinos in special districts on the outer islands, but only if local residents held a referendum. As with the Yunlin legislative by-election, Ma Ying-jeou remained silent from beginning to end. He allowed locals to make their own decisions. The King of Penghu had little chance to influence Ma Ying-jeou. Ma Ying-jeou expressed no opinions. KMT legislators’ were also divided, and included both supporters and opponents. The legislature did not intervene in the referendum. It allowed local politics free reign. For the next three years at least, it will be unnecessary to waste energy debaing whether to build casinos on Penghu. Should other cities and counties should build casinos? Penghu County has established a precedent. A referendum is the easiest way to resolve disputes and achieve consensus.

The Kuomintang ruled on Taiwan for over half a century. Yet Black Gold brought this venerable party down overnight. The lesson is clear. The KMT has been back in power less than a year and a half. Yet the same special interests, the same outmoded ways of thinking are gradually re-emerging. The political calculations of local factions and party heads have never been based on deep convictions or high ideals. The results of the Yunlin County legislative by-election and the Penghu referendum have given the KMT a chance to re-examine their convictions and ideals, to recall the commitments they made back in 2008 in order to reclaim political power: integrity and reform.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.28
社論－國民黨擺脫派系羈絆 此其時矣
本報訊

選舉輸贏的定義是什麼？一席立委？還是在地方開辦一個國際賭場？九月廿六日這一天，雲林和澎湖，分別舉辦立委補選以及博弈公投，巧不巧，對人的選舉，國民黨分裂，讓民進黨提名者順利當選。至於對事的公投，出乎原先的預期，在反公投社運積極不放棄的宣揚下，開放博弈未能過關；又因為國民黨公職多支持澎湖開放博弈，這兩個地方性的選舉被界定為「國民黨的挫敗」，甚至是「馬政權的鬆動」。

如果單純從選舉得票數、國會席次以及國民黨政策主張而論，上述推論理所當然是對的。但是更深一層推究這兩地選舉的本質，輸贏的定義可能就得重新寫過。

以雲林立委補選來說，選舉的發端是因為國民黨參選人涉入賄選遭起訴判刑後，依法取消當選資格。國民黨參選人在雲林，幾乎從無例外必須妥協於地方派系的需求，從李登輝執政末期，這些依靠國民黨、卻又蠶食國民黨的地方派系，進步不大、幾無轉型，結果讓李登輝政權以「黑金」之名終結；八年政黨輪替，這些地方派系少數轉而靠攏民進黨，像嘉義縣，進而打破地方派系生態；但多數變化不大，不論是否依附國民黨，或以無黨籍之外，終究還是以派系協調、樁腳綁票的模式，維繫地方政商力量，同時，繼續啃食國民黨。雲林縣就是典型之一，永遠的張榮味、永遠的水利會、永遠擺不平就靠向民進黨，張榮味確有實力，他的實力卻永遠只為張派服務；水利會是國民黨培植的地方網絡，但和張派差別不大，對他們而言，國民黨存在的前提是：張派（或水利會）不倒。

如果派系能與時俱進，體會時代與人民需求，適應或重建一個乾淨的地方生態，派系不倒問題不大，偏偏這些依附於地方派系生存的政治人物，不論學歷有多高，經歷有多美，都得照著派系的規章辦事，候選人不買票？成，樁腳買；兒子不買票？好，老子買；拿地方民眾當白痴的競選文化，不敗才怪！

雲林補選讓民進黨多一席立委，這席立委於國會政黨生態影響不大，國民黨在立法院還是最大多數；民進黨席次距離所謂罷免總統，還很遙遠，與其一而再、再而三地被地方派系掐著脖子，不如鐵了心，「寧要清廉不要黑金！」馬英九在花蓮縣長黨內提名爭議中，曾經發過類似重語，雲林立委補選一役，從頭到尾他不加聞問，展現了他在沉默中的決心！

澎湖開放博弈則屬於事的公投，澎湖雖不至於像雲林地方生態如此壁壘分明，但差異沒這麼大，地方數來數去就是一位「澎湖王」，而圍繞在澎湖王身邊的地方公職口徑一致，要求設置賭場，早從李登輝時代就開始各路遊說，即使扁政府八年，這群依附於國民黨的地方人物，依舊神通廣大地取得民進黨重要人物的支持，連前副總統呂秀蓮都還煞有介事地考察過。但就因為賭場爭議過大，十多年來幾番討論，還是沒辦法付諸實現。

馬英九總統的競選政見雖然贊成離島設置博弈特區，但前提是要經過住民公投，與雲林立委補選一樣，馬英九從頭到尾並未再置一詞，完全放手讓地方人士自行裁奪，所謂的澎湖王，幾乎沒有在馬英九身上下工夫的空間；不但馬英九不多言，國民黨立委之間意見亦屬分歧，支持與反對者皆有之，國會亦未介入這次公投，讓地方公共事物有一個充分自主決擇的空間。至少未來三年，不必再費神費力在澎湖要不要設置賭場這件事上，至於其他縣市要不要設置賭場？有澎湖縣為前例，公投，就是一個最簡單化解爭議，取得最大共識的方法。

國民黨在台執政超過半世紀，「黑金」兩個字就能一夕整垮這個百年老黨，前車之鑑未遠，國民黨才拿回政權一年半不到，老勢力、舊思維，又逐漸顯現張牙舞爪之態；地方派系、政黨山頭背地裡撥打的算盤，從來不是信念和理想，雲林立委補選、澎湖公投的結果，正好給國民黨一個重新檢視信念和理想的機會，重回二○○八贏回政權之初衷：清廉、改革。

In the National Interest: No Invitation to Kadeer

In the National Interest: No Invitation to Kadeer
WASHINGTON
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 25, 2009

The Green Camp recently invited the Dalai Lama, Tibetan spiritual leader, to visit Taiwan. Now it has extended an invitation to Xinjiang independence activist Rebiyah Kadeer. This time the invitation has nothing to do with humanitarianism. It has even less to do with religion. The Kaohsiung Film Festival is merely screening a documentary film on Rebiyah Kadeer. The invitation has provoked a backlash from the local Kaohsiung tourism industry. The Kaohsiung City Government responded by moving up the screening. Controversy has flared up, and the Green Camp is elated. The pro independence heavy metal band Chthonic visited Washington and invited Rebiyah Kadeer. Her visit is subject to the approval of the Ma administration. The Green Camp is watching to see how the Ma administration deals with this hot potato. They don’t realize this hot potato is just like the Dalai Lama. It won’t burn the Ma administration. It will only burn the DPP.
Rebiyah Kadeer is different from the Dalai Lama. Xinjiang’s problems are different from Tibet’s. Feverish Taiwan independence groups see the word “independence” and reflexively gave their approval. They have misunderstood the situation. They are harming the national interest. They are indulging in feel-good emotionalism, merely because of the word “independence.” Their theatrics are futile and ignorant.

Kaohsiung City Mayor Chen Chu, eager to demonstrate her affinity with democracy, freedom, and human rights, made a special effort to see the Kadeer documentary ahead of time. After viewing the film, she said she and Kadeer were alike. According to the mainland, Kadeer did not come from a wealthy family. But thanks to reform and liberalization, a decade of struggle, and a special franchise granted by Beijing, she is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. She is the richest woman in Xinjiang. Not only that, she was handpicked by the Beijing government and elected to the Eighth CPPCC National Committee. Apart from the fact that both Chen Chu and Rebiyah Kadeer both served time in prison, how is Chen Chu anything like Rebiyah Kadeer?

Not long ago, just before newly appointed Premier Wu Den-yih was interpolated in the Legislative Yuan, Green Camp legislators blasted Wu Den-yih for meeting with a “former CPPCC National Committee member.” They accused Wu of colluding with Communists to sell out Taiwan. But isn’t Kadeer a “former CPPCC National Committee member?” The Green Camp is cozying up to this life long beneficiary of Chinese Communist Party mentorship, and political and commercial sponsorship. Having benefitted, she is now biting the hand that fed her. In 1999 Kadeer was arrested for crimes against national security. In 2005 she was granted medical leave, and allowed to go to the United States. Before her departure, she promised “never again to participate in any activities that would endanger China’s national security.” But once she reached the United States, she plunged headlong into Xinjiang independence activities. In 2006 she was elected Chairman of the World Uyghur Congress. The World Uyghur Congress includes 20 East Turkistan separatist organizations in over 10 countries. It has engaged in terrorist attacks, and been identified as one of several terrorist organizations by Beijing. The 7/15 Incident and the recent needle attacks have provoked Beijing beyond its limits.

Taipei does not need to follow Beijing’s lead. But neither does it need to deliberately invite Kadeer just in order to anger Beijing. The Dalai Lama spoke of love for peace. He has reiterated that he does not advocate Tibetan independence. He said he came to Taiwan solely to lead disaster victims in prayer. But why is Kadeer coming? What can she do for Taiwan? Preach Xinjiang independence? The intensity of the Xinjiang independence movement far exceeds anything the Green Camp can imagine. The Xinjiang independence movement sees independence for Xinjiang as a Jihad. Non-Muslim countries may not even assist or participate. But Xinjiang is not a region inhabited by only one ethnic group. It is true that Beijing has plans for Han Chinese to migrate to the region. But Xinjiang has long been home to Kazaks, Kirgiz, Kashgars and eight or nine other ethnic minorities. These ethnic minorities are scattered along Xinjiang’s western border. They do not oppose the central government in Beijing. In fact they are responsible for garrisoning the Mainland Chinese border. The Xinjiang independence movement is based in southern Xinjiang, yet it often incites ethnic friction in northern Xinjiang. Is this really something pro-independence elements on Taiwan really want to see?

Green Camp organizations have Invited Kadeer. They hope the Ma administration will agree to her visit on the basis of “human rights.” But if one wants to talk about human rights, why invite Rebiyah Kadeer? Why not invite pro-independence human rights icon Shih Ming-teh? After all, Shih was a “party outsider” and DPP Chairman who dedicated years of his life to human rights on Taiwan. The Green Camp has discarded its own human rights icon like an old pair of slippers. Instead it engages in Machiavellian calculation and underhanded political manipulation. It incites conflict within the community. It undermines cross-strait relations. But to what end? What is Taiwan to champions of Taiwan independence? Is it a land they can callously abuse?

When the Dalai Lama was about to visit Taiwan, the Presidential Office studied the matter for five or six hours, then gave its approval, on the basis of humanitarianism. It agreed on the basis of the welfare of the disaster victims. It followed through by treating religion as religion. It ensured that cross-Strait relations would not be damaged. Kadeer says she wants to visit Taiwan in December. The Ma administration has yet to express a position on the matter. It is over two months until December. Even if the Ma administration wants to drag its feet for two months before expressing an opinion, the Green Camp will not forsake this opportunity to play up the issue. It has demanded that the Executive Yuan provide an answer no later than Friday. Put bluntly, it wants Premier Wu to publicly respond during interpolation in the Legislative Yuan. It wants Wu to tell them whether the government dares to allow Kadeer to visit Taiwan? Is this hot potato hot? No it isn’t!

Businessmen in Kaohsiung have risen in protest. They have demanded that the Kaohsiung City Government refrain from inciting controversy harmful to the local economy. So why is the Ma administration hesitating? The government must give priority to just one thing: the national interest. The Ma administration should come right out and tell the public that based on the national interest, it is not appropriate for Rebiyah Kadeer to visit Taiwan.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.25
社論－為國家利益 不宜讓熱比婭訪台
本報訊

繼邀訪西藏精神領袖達賴之後，綠營天外又飛來一筆，要邀請疆獨人士熱比婭訪台。這次既非關人道，更非關宗教，只不過是為了高雄影展安排播放熱比婭的紀錄片，引發在地觀光業者的反彈，高雄市政府改變方式提前播放。綠營見爭議而心喜，由閃靈樂團奔到華府力邀熱比婭，熱比婭能否來台，還是得看馬政府是否同意，綠營壁上觀看馬政府怎麼處理這個燙手山芋，全然不知，這個山芋和達賴一樣，燙不到馬政府，只會燙到民進黨。

熱比婭和達賴不同，新疆問題和西藏問題迥異，獨派團體一頭熱地見「獨」就貼，完全搞不清楚狀況，傷害國家利益，只為了「獨」給自己爽，不但無聊，甚且無知。

為了表明自己先行播放熱比婭紀錄片，無違民主、自由、人權價值的高雄市長陳菊，特別前往觀片，看完她說覺得熱比婭和她有點像，根據大陸方面的資料，熱比婭並非富裕家庭出身，但在改革開放後，經過十年拚搏，加上中共的特許，擁有數億身家，成為新疆女首富；非但如此，她還在中共的刻意培植下，當選第八屆全國政協委員。除了坐過牢，真不知陳菊到底覺得她與熱比婭哪一點像？

猶記不久前，新科行政院長吳敦義就任赴立法院總質詢前，綠委還舖天蓋地痛批吳敦義赴港見了「前政協委員」，質疑吳有通匪賣台之嫌，熱比婭不也是個「前政協委員」嗎？綠營熱臉貼上這位中共一路栽培的政商既得利益者，有何好得意忘形的？熱比婭在一九九九年因危害國家安全罪被捕；二○○五年她獲准保外就醫赴美，離境前，她的保證是「決不再參與危害中國國家安全的任何活動」，但她一到美國便投身疆獨活動，並在二○○六年當選世維會主席。世維會結合世界十多個國家廿多個東突分裂組織，並從事多起恐怖活動，是北京當局認定的恐怖組織之一。從七一五事件到最近依舊肇事不斷的刺針黨行動，都讓北京當局對熱比婭有著忍無可忍的憤怒。

台灣確實不必以北京馬首是瞻，但也沒必要純粹只為激怒北京而邀訪熱比婭吧？達賴說什麼終究還是以愛好和平為宗旨，多次申明不主張西藏獨立，遑論來台還是為了災民祈福；請問：熱比婭來台要幹啥？能幹啥？宣揚推動疆獨經驗？綠營難道不知道疆獨的激烈程度遠超過他們的想像，他們將爭取新疆獨立視同聖戰，甚至不容非回教國家協助或參與。但是，新疆不是單一民族區，除了中共有計畫移民實邊而遷入的漢人外，還有哈薩喀、吉爾吉斯、喀什喀爾等八、九個少數民族，這些少數民族，散居新疆西界，不但不挑戰北京中央，還為中共戍邊；此外，疆獨以南疆為大本營，卻常在北疆製造擾亂活動、族群衝突。這是獨派人士希望在台灣看到的景象嗎？

邀請熱比婭的綠營團體希望馬政府以「人權」理念，同意熱比婭訪台。如果要談人權，與其力邀熱比婭演講，為什麼不邀請曾經為黨外、民進黨、獨派奉獻畢生精華歲月的台灣人權指標人物、前民進黨主席施明德演講？綠營把自己的人權指標前輩棄之如蔽屣，卻在權謀算計下，搞政治小動作、製造社會內部爭議，激化兩岸關係，圖的到底是什麼？台灣，在獨派心目中，難道是一個隨便耍弄糟蹋的地方嗎？

達賴訪台，總統府高層會議五、六個小時研商後旋即拍板，決定在人道關懷、為災民祈福的立場上同意，後續處理上也維持宗教的歸宗教，讓兩岸關係不至因此受挫；熱比婭表達希望十二月來台的意願，馬政府到現在為止，並未對此做明確表示。距離十二月還有二個多月的時間，但即使馬政府想賴著、拖著，兩個月後再說，綠委也不會放過這個擴大爭議的機會，早早表明要行政院「最遲」在今（周五）日以前要給個答案。說穿了，就是要吳揆直接在立法院總質詢時公開答詢，政府敢不敢讓熱比婭訪台？這個山芋燙嗎？一點都不燙！

當高雄業者群起抗議要求市政府不要再製造不利民間經濟的爭端，馬政府還有什麼可猶豫的？政府必須優先考量只有一件事：國家利益。馬政府就應該直截了當告訴全民：基於國家利益，並不適宜讓熱比婭訪台。

The Taiwan High Speed Rail Scandal: The Feelings of Ordinary Citizens

The Taiwan High Speed Rail Scandal: The Feelings of Ordinary Citizens
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 24, 2009

The Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation (THSRC) scandal has been the focus of recent public attention. According to the Control Yuan, over the past few years the Continental Engineering Corporation was awarded contracts worth 106.2 billion NT. The Evergreen Group was awarded contracts worth 76.4 billion NT. The Teco Group was awarded contracts worth 40 billion NT, and the Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Company was awarded contracts worth 30 billion NT. Assuming a 10 percent net profit, these projects have netted the original shareholders over 25 billion NT in profits. If we compare this figure to the amount these four original investors put in, they have already earned more than enough. Now that these original shareholders have earned more than their share, they want out. They have even affected an injured air. Their behavior is totally unacceptable. If we think of the THSRC scandal as a marriage, then the government was the father of the bride, one who saw dollar signs. This encouraged him to give his daughter to Continental Engineering Corporation. Now the THSRC’s assets have become liabilities, and the daughter’s honor has been compromised. Does the government really bear no responsibility?
The THSRC project has enabled the original shareholders to make a killing, then palm the losses off on the taxpayers. It has set a black-hearted precedent for future entrepreneurs to emulate. Businesses usually empty their coffers through an averaging process. Let’s say that someone controls a conglomerate that includes Company A and Company B. He has total control over Company A, but less control over Company A’s cash flow. He has greater control over Company B’s cash flow. He assigns the profitable functions to Company A, and the unprofitable functions to Company B. When the profits from the two companies are averaged out, he makes a killing in Company A, and suffers minor losses in Company B. The conglomerate as a whole suffer losses, but he lines his own pockets. The law states that when someone hollows out a conglomerate in such a manner, he is guilty of breach of trust.

The major shareholders of the THSRC used a different method to cheat shareholders. First the original shareholders assigned the profitable operation to themselves. They lined their own pockets. Then they dumped the unprofitable operations on the government, forcing it to clean up their mess. The government has no choice but to take it over. In the end of course, the taxpayers are the ones who must pay through the nose. Some observers have characterized the THSRC as a meticulous plan to empty out the public coffers. These observers may only be speculating. But the evidence suggests their speculations are not groundless. Let us examine the evidence, one piece at a time.

First, when the THSRC bid on the project, it promised that “the government would not have to put up one cent, but would earn hundreds of billons in profits.” Now it appears that promise was empty talk. Should the government allow iself to be played for a fool? Secondly, the promises made during its tender offer never became a binding part of the original shareholders’ contract. Why not? Third, why did the original shareholders refuse to contribute to the numerous capital injections that followed? Were they truly committed to the marriage? Fourth, why are independent bank groups unwilling to make capital injections? Are they pessimistic about the company’s future? Fifthly, all subsequent capital injections were made by quasi-public enterprises such as the Aviation Development Fund and the China Technical Consultants, Wasn’t this a violation of the promise that “the government would not have to put up one cent?” Sixth, why has ridership fallen so short of the original estimates? Do the original shareholders really bear no responsibility? Seventh, it is a simple matter for a company calculate how much it must borrow to pay off the interest on its loans. Was the THSRC really unaware of how burdensome these interest payments would be?

Many doubts have surfaced. But most of these doubts were raised long ago. The Continental Engineering Corporation promised that the “government would not have to put up one cent, but would earn hundreds of billons in profits.” Many expressed doubts. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is now tearing its hair out in search of a way out. But observers are pessimistic. Intuitively speaking, if the THSRC still had a chance to make money, the original shareholders, foxy as they are, would be taking the lead, hope to rake in huge profits. The reason they are cashing in their chips and allowing the government to intervene, is that they consider the THSRC beyond hope. They have already milked the project for all it is worth. When the foxes abandon the corpse, can government officials really bring it back to life?

The government has been conned. It must now clean up the mess and ensure accountability. Cleaning up the mess means rethinking transportation policy and the public interest. Ensuring accountability means considering the feelings of ordinary citizens, not allowing con artists to get off scot-free. Ensuring responsibility must not be limited to punishing incompetent civil servants. Even more importantly, it means prosecuting those guilty of crimes such as breach of trust, embezzlement, and providing officials with false information. Sun Tao-chun owed less than 300 million in back taxes. Yet society denounced him mercilessly. Meanwhile the THSRC has left behind hundreds of billions in debt. Can it really be treated more leniently? Sun brought down the family business his father left him. The THSRC, on the other hand, undercut the credibility of the Republic of China government, and cheated millions of taxpayers out of their hard-earned money. It should be abundantly clear which is the more serious offense. Premier Wu is focusing his attention on the economic plight of the average citizen. Perhaps it’s time he expressed concern over the average citizens’ feelings about the THSRC scandal.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.24
面對高鐵爭議的幾點庶民感受
本報訊

台灣高鐵公司的案子最近顯然是輿論的焦點。依監察院的資料顯示，過去數年大陸工程承包了一○六二億工程，長榮集團承包七六四億，而東元電機與太電集團亦分別包到四百多億與三百多億。如果以百分之十的淨利粗估，這些工程至少也給幾家原始股東賺到了兩百五十餘億。這個數字較之於前述四家原始出資者的金額，其實已經綽綽有餘。高鐵幾位原始股東在賺飽之際宣稱要走人，還一副受盡委屈的表情，確實讓人難以接受。以婚嫁打個比方：政府當年就是看到原始股東誘人的回饋禮金，才把工程「嫁給」大陸集團。如今，聘金變負債、女兒也被人糟蹋了，當初騙婚的人難道就沒事了嗎？

像台灣高鐵公司這樣「先讓大股東賺飽，再讓全社會埋單」的事件，也算給經營企業者，樹立了一個黑心案例。一般企業掏空通常是水平式的：某甲所控之企業集團有Ａ、Ｂ兩家公司，甲皆有絕對的控制權；但甲在Ａ公司現金流量權較小，在Ｂ公司現金流量權較大，於是就把賺錢的生意交給Ａ公司做，但虧本生意則丟給Ｂ。兩相加減，某甲大賺Ａ而小賠Ｂ，結果是企業集團可能虧損，但某甲口袋滿滿。在法律上，這是某甲對企業集團的掏空與背信行為。

但台灣高鐵的營運模式與一般的水平掏空不同，是循時間垂直式的。高鐵原始股東「先將」賺錢的生意由自己承擔，將口袋塞滿鈔票；「然後」再將虧錢的營運留給政府承接爛攤子。後面不得不接收的政府顯然是有口難言，而最後承擔苦果的，當然還是全體納稅人。外界將高鐵今天的爛攤子描述成一個設計精良的掏空計畫，雖然是個假說，但是，支持這項假說的背後證據，卻一點都不模糊。且讓我們一項一項拿出來檢視。

第一，當年高鐵公司投標時「政府零出資、千億回饋金」的承諾，現在看起來簡直是空話。台灣政府該這樣被人耍弄嗎？第二，當年投標的承諾，事後竟然沒有辦法成為約束原始股東的契約內容，這是為什麼？第三，為什麼高鐵原始股東事後多次增資自己都置身事外？是否凸顯出自己對未來婚姻的心虛？第四，為什麼各獨立銀行團後來皆不願增資，是否表示他們也對未來不樂觀？第五，如果幾次重要的增資都是由航發會、中技社等泛公營機構奉命投入，這難道沒有實質違反「政府零出資」的承諾？第六，為什麼當初預估的乘載量與現在會差那麼多？難道原始股東都沒有責任？第七，一家公司借錢所負擔的利息預估，其實是非常簡單的財務分析。為什麼事前竟然無法預見今日的沉重利息負擔？

以上這麼多疑點，其實不是今天才有人提起，而是早在大陸工程提出「政府零出資、回饋一千億」時，民間就或多或少、陸陸續續地開始質疑。交通部現在正為這些坑坑洞洞煩惱，希望能找出一條生路，但外界咸感悲觀。直觀而言，如果高鐵未來確實還有賺錢的機會，那麼這一群比狐狸還精的原始股東，當然會身先士卒，自己去享受果實。他們之所以兩手一攤，讓政府插手救援，大概一則表示高鐵未來營運病入膏肓，二則表示他們獲利的「階段性任務」已經完成。當狐狸們撒手棄屍時，政府公務員還能扮大羅金仙嗎？

面對這樣一個騙婚疑案，我們認為政府必須同時在「善後」與「究責」兩方面雙管齊下。善後是交通政策與民生福祉的考量，而究責則是照顧庶民情感、不讓騙婚者置身事外。我們所謂究責，倒不只是侷限於懲處公務人員的顢頇無能，而更要著重此事可能涉及的背信、掏空與使公務員為不實登載等種種不法。孫道存欠稅不到三億，就被社會Ｋ到不行，但台灣高鐵背後卻是千億的大窟窿，豈能小覷？孫氏搞垮的是他父親留下來的家業，但台灣高鐵卻是糟蹋了台灣政府的ＢＯＴ威信與人民的納稅錢。兩相比較，孰輕孰重應是清楚分明。吳院長既然注重庶民經濟，是不是也該關切一下庶民的感覺呢？