Pursuing Quality Democracy in Taiwan 2012/12/29
George T. Chang
「如果我們始終在『過去』和『現在』之間爭吵，我們必將失去『未來』。」
邱吉爾
If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.
–Winston S. Churchill
作為一個台灣建國運動的推動者，我時常捫心自問：「我對台灣的終極關懷是什麼？」，或者是說：「我希望百年後的台灣，會是什麼樣的社會？」，面對台灣社會的現狀，午夜夢迴，雖然輾轉反側，然而思緒卻愈來愈清晰。
As an ardent promoter of Taiwan Independence, I have repeatedly asked myself “What is my ultimate concern forTaiwan?” ”What is the future ofTaiwanI would hope for?” After long fretting over the current political turmoil inTaiwan, I have come up with some clear ideas.
我所看到的台灣社會
What I Have Witnessed
台灣從2000年以來的藍綠對抗，可以說是「撕裂的十年」、「民主倒退的十年」。台灣社會裡，充斥著感性熱情的選民，卻鮮少有理性參與的公民；政治人物整日吵翻天，媒體名嘴以特定的立場推波助瀾，導致人民理盲又濫情。討論問題前，要先分清楚顏色，台灣社會早已陷入「有立場沒是非、有黨派沒對錯」的極端對立。政黨的使命，窮得只剩下選舉；政客的目標，窮得只剩下選票；政治人物的歷史視野，窮得只看到2016年，國際視野更是窮得只剩下台海對岸的中國。
The first decade of the 21st century in Taiwan is epitomized by the conflicts between the Blue and the Green camps, which has set back Taiwan’s democracy. While there are ample enthusiastic voters during election times, there are few rational citizens taking part in public affairs. As politicians indulge in partisan quarrels, opinionated guests on TV talk shows fan the flames, discouraging people from engaging in sensible dialogues. As a result, people become frantic and lose rationality. In discussing policy alternatives, political lines are clear-cut, making Taiwan a society where there is plenty of partisan politics that have little to do with right or wrong. The goal of political parties is to seek nothing but votes and electoral victories, and politicians’ visions are so poor that they focus on nothing but the year of 2016 and China across the Taiwan Strait.
台灣當前的政治亂象：藍綠嚴重對立、社會不斷撕裂、政府持續空轉。歷次的民調也都顯示，有50％以上受訪民眾認為：「政黨惡鬥是台灣當前最大的危機」。幾年前，「經濟學人」（The Economist）雜誌曾評論：「政治文化是目前台灣最大的問題」。2011年8月美國時事雜誌「外交政策」（Foreign Policy）則指出：台灣、日本、比利時的國會，是全球三大最無能的國會。
What is left in Taiwannowadays is political chaos: endless partisan confrontations, deepening social cleavages, and ineffective government and politicians. Indeed, numerous public opinion polls have showed that more than half of the population believes that partisan hostility is the most serious crisis in Taiwan. As The Economist commented a few years ago, political culture is the most severe problem in Taiwan. In its August 2001 issue, Foreign Policy also pointed out that the parliaments ofTaiwan,Japan, andBelgium are the most incompetent in the world.
其實在多元化、民主化的開放社會，意見不同本是很正常，不足為奇的；重要的是要用什麼態度面對問題？有沒有能力處理問題？不幸的是，台灣社會卻不懂得如何處理，處理模式更常常陷於：只有立場，不問是非；只有黨派，不問黑白。甚至拚命找對手的缺點、拚命找與對手不同的地方，追求零和遊戲（Zero-Sum Game），形成「互相否定、互相消滅」的局勢。完全缺少西方先進國家理性溝通、尊重包容，和而不同(Diversity in Unity)，同中存異、異中求同的文化。我們必需認真思考，如何擺脫目前理盲又濫情、只問顏色不問是非的困境，建立台灣新的政治文化，回歸民主政治的常規，創造安定的政局。
In fact, diverse opinions on public issues are common in pluralistic democracies. The point at issue here is what attitudes citizens are taking to resolve disputes. Unfortunately, politicians are enjoying zero-sum games and are quick to attack one another in an attempt to exclude and even to destroy others. InTaiwanthere is a deficiency in rational communication that commonly exists in Western democracies. There is no mutual respect and no culture of finding diversity in unity and finding unity in diversity. We must contemplate how to get rid of irrationality and emotionalism and break away from partisanship while focusing on distinguishing right from wrong. We must establish a new political culture and return to the normalcy of democracy to create a peaceful political society inTaiwan.
面對問題，卻不想探討原因，不想辦法解決，只是一味的迴避，一味的避談政治，我覺得這並不是正確的態度。正如法鼓山聖嚴法師所說：「面對問題時，你要面對它、接受它、處理它、放下它。」
就來面對問題吧！
So, let’s face the problem! Avoiding political problems is not a healthy attitude. As Master Shen Yen of theDharmaDrumMountainsays, “When there is a problem, face it, accept it, manage it, and resolve it.”
我所思考的台灣社會
How I Reflect
回顧台灣的民主化進程，台灣社會由威權到民主的轉型過程，也許是世界歷史上的最佳典範。
1987年，蔣經國前總統體認到國際情勢的變遷與台灣人民的要求，正式宣步解嚴，將禁錮近40年的台灣社會，踏出自由民主之途的第一步。
As I recall the process of transformation from authoritarianism to democracy inTaiwan, I would say that it may set the best example in human history. Under pressure for liberalization from within and without, the late President Chiang Ching-kuo, son of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, lifted martial law in 1987, taking the first step toward democracy.
1991年5月1日李登輝前總統宣布終止動員戡亂時期臨時條款：承認中共統治中國大陸、兩岸不對立、國內開放，這是台灣民主化最關鍵的一步。接著解除黨禁、開放媒體、凍省、廢國代、修改刑法100條、廢除海外黑名單、國會全面改選、1996年總統直選、2000年政黨輪替，政權和平轉移。短短10年間，台灣社會由威權體制轉化為民主開放的社會，這種世界史上前所未見的民主大轉型（great transformation），台灣卻付出相當低的代價，也因此被稱為「寧靜革命」，國際社會更常常稱讚台灣是民主轉型非常成功的典範。
On May 1, 1991, former President Lee Teng-hui terminated the Temporary Provisions effective during the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of Communist Rebellion. He recognized the Peoples’ Republic of China to end hostility in theTaiwan Straitand open up the society. This was a giant step towards Taiwan’s democratization, followed by lifting a ban on political parties and the media, freezing provincial government, abolishing the National Assembly, amending Article 100 of the Criminal Code, revoking the black-list on Taiwanese expatriates, and calling for general elections for national representative bodies and direct presidential election. All these eventually resulted in a peaceful party and government transition. In ten short years,Taiwantransformed from an authoritarian system to a liberal democratic society. It was a great transformation and unprecedented in the world, often touted as a successful “silent revolution” by the international community.
2000年第一次政黨輪替，乃至於2008年第二次政黨輪替，都在人民的高度期待厚望下登台；但令人遺憾的是，期待與事實落差太大。藍綠對立，社會撕裂、政府空轉、經濟發展停頓、價值扭曲、是非不分、道德沉淪，因此也有很多人認為：台灣是世界上民主深化與鞏固，相當不成功的案例之一。
The political transitions in 2000 and 2008 came with high expectations from the people. Unfortunately, they did not live up to expectations; what people face now are political confrontations between the Blue and the Green camps, social cleavages, political standstills, economic recession, value distortions, and moral decay. Many observers believe thatTaiwanis one of the countries that has failed to neither consolidate nor deepen the democratization process.
自由民主是一件容易吞下去，卻不容易消化的東西，選舉不等於民主，政黨輪替也不等於民主；民主不僅是一種政治制度，更要內化為生活的方式、待人處事的態度。民主之所以可貴，乃在於民主可以包容獨立、統一、或維持現狀等各種不同的意識形態與主張；但任何意識形態，絕對不能取代民主、凌駕民主之上。任何人更不應該違背「台灣前途應由二千三百萬全體住民，以公民投票來決定」的立場。民主已是超越統獨的台灣共識，也是高於統獨的台灣價值，更是化解統獨爭論的最佳方法。只要經由人民自由意志、透過民主程序得來的結論，不論統獨，任何人都應該予以尊重同意。自由民主的生活方式，更是我們面對中國威脅的最大軟實力與最大優勢。
Democracy may be easy to swallow, but difficult to digest. Voting is not equivalent to democracy; nor is regime change equal to democratic consolidation. Democracy is not a mere political institution; it is also a way of life, particularly in how people deal with one another. Its merit is toleration of competing ideologies and opposing positions. Nothing can take the place of democracy, not even the issue ofTaiwan’s political future, be itTaiwanindependence, unification withChina, or maintaining the status quo.
Furthermore, nobody can override the consensus that the future ofTaiwanis to be decided by all residents ofTaiwan. Democracy has become the prevailing ideal, surpassing the independence-unification dichotomy, and it is also the best way to resolve this issue. Everyone must accept a consensus reached through a democratic method. In other words, as long as the choice is made by the people’s free will, it should be honored by all parties. I can never emphasize enough that democracy is our most reliable soft power againstChina’s threats.
前幾年，藍綠政黨惡鬥、社會動蕩不已時，曾有媒體記者問我，身為台獨大老、民主的前輩，對於現今藍綠嚴重對立，有何看法？我答說：「我是色盲，看不清楚藍綠，只看是非黑白」。然而藍綠對立真的無解嗎？我深感不以為然。
A few years ago, a journalist asked me, “As a staunch proponent of independence and democracy, how do you view the contemporary partisan power struggles and social unrests in Taiwan?” My reply was simply, “I am politically color-blind, seeing things only as right or wrong.” Is there any way out of the needless political confrontations between the Blue and Green camps? I believe there is.
台灣社會面對的許多問題，尤其是道德標準、社會規範、公共倫理、政治人物的誠信與清廉、追求自由、民主、人權、法治的普世價值，根本無關意識形態，不分藍綠。至於其他公共政策，大部分更是屬於政治性低，非意識形態的議題：包括提升政府效能、經濟發展、國家競爭力、永續發展、拚治安、司法改革、金融改革、教育改革、國土規劃、政府再造、重整健保制度、社會福利、在國際上與美、日等國家簽訂FTA，不都是超越藍綠，超越意識形態！只是大家過於強調不同的地方，而忽略了更多相同的地方。
Many problemsTaiwanis facing today, such as low morality, lack of social constraints and ethics, public officials’ dubious integrity and credibility, as well as our pursuit of the universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights, law and order, etc. have nothing to do with ideology or political affiliations. Many public policy issues such as government’s effectiveness, economic growth, national competitiveness, sustainable development, social order, judicial, financial, and educational reforms, land planning, government rejuvenation, health system overhaul, social welfare, and international relations, are all above the Blue and Green conflict and ideological contest. However, people have a tendency to overemphasize their differences and disregard their commonality.
台灣面對全球化的挑戰，我們應該知道不會有一個「沒有中國的全球化」，也不會有一個「沒有風險的大陸政策」。事實上全球化經貿的交流合作，既是機會，又是風險，我們不應該只談正面，也要談負面，要有客觀冷靜專業的評估。就以簽訂ECFA而言，國會表決前，執政黨說盡好話，在野黨盡說壞話。2010年6月簽訂至今，對台灣產業與社會的利弊得失，反倒無人聞問。殊不知，公共政策本來就有它的一體兩面，作為負責任的政黨與政治人物，就應該權衡利弊得失，然後告訴人民，要如何擴大利基爭取獲益，也會提出配套措施以降低損失。然而，藍綠兩黨，卻是愛之欲其生，恨之欲其死，始終沒有交集。
In this era of globalization, we must realize that there is no wayTaiwancan do withoutChina. Nor is there anyChinapolicy without its potential risks. In reality, there are both challenges and opportunities in economic exchange and cooperation with other nations. We must objectively weigh both positive gains and negative costs.
Take for example the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed withChina in June 2010. Before its approval by the Legislative Yuan, the ruling party only touted its merits while the opposition party only focused on its drawbacks. Nobody cared to evaluate it in terms of its overall impact onTaiwan’s industries and people’s lives. We know that all policies have their costs and benefits, and that responsible policy makers ought to evaluate all major factors and maximize gains while minimizing losses. Sadly enough, the two major parties find no common ground and appear to take pleasure in cutting each other’s throat.
不過我想，台灣社會的現狀，固然是對立，然而當我們看到1987年韓國的反對運動，以自焚、跳樓自殺、丟汽油彈等手段來反抗獨裁貪污的政權；看到PLO（巴勒斯坦解放組織）為了建國、消滅以色列，從事劫機、汽車炸彈、自殺攻擊等慘不忍睹的恐怖行為；看到南非ANC(非洲民族議會)，在1990年代，為了反抗白人的少數統治及種族隔離政策，黑人放火、暴動、搶劫；白人警察開槍、丟催淚彈、放狗咬人等情況，相較之下，這些國家的國內分歧、國際孤立，都比台灣目前的問題嚴重許多。這些國家都能夠從對立撕裂中，尋求和解之道，所以我們要虛心學習這些國際級政治人物的格局、高度與器度，以及他們解決問題的智慧，為台灣社會找出一條和諧共生的康莊大道。
With all these dismal problems, it is fortunate that Taiwanhas not run into as much violence as other countries. In 1987, the opposition in South Koreacountered the ruling party by self-immolation, suicide jumping, and throwing Molotov cocktails. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) engaged in such terrorist acts as hijacking, car bombing, and suicide bombings in its effort to secure nationhood and eliminate Israel. In the 1990’s, blacks of the ANC (African National Congress) of South Africa committed arson, riots and robberies while white policemen reacted by firing live bullets, throwing tear gas, and unleashing police dogs at them. In comparison, these countries’ domestic and international problems were much more serious thanTaiwan’s. Yet they were able to find conciliatory measures to resolve their problems. We inTaiwan have to emulate their people’s wisdom and their politicians’ tolerance and magnanimity in seeking a path to a harmonious society.
就以愛爾蘭為例：愛爾蘭過去是一個一窮二白的國家，連馬鈴薯都不夠吃，只好大量向外移民。1920年代為了抵抗英國殘酷的殖民統治，以生命、鮮血與大膽激進的行動爭取獨立，當地曾有一句古老諺語說：「愛爾蘭的河水是鹹的，因為那是愛爾蘭人的眼淚」，愛爾蘭人民的生活非常困苦、政治動亂不安，在1987年還被「經濟學人」雜誌稱為「歐洲的乞丐」。然而，不到20年的時間，在金融風暴發生之前，愛爾蘭國民所得接近5萬美元，高居歐盟第二，教育至大學全部免費，並號稱是世界的投資天堂。
In the case of Ireland, it used to be a poverty-stricken country and many people emigrated to other countries. In the 1920s, its people shed their blood and sacrificed their lives to get rid of British colonial rule and gain independence. There is an old saying, “The water in Irish rivers is salty because they contain tears of Irish people.”Even after its independence, Ireland remained so poor and chaotic that in 1987 The Economist called it the “European beggar.” However, in 20 short years, before the global financial crisis, Irish per capita income shot up to US$50,000, second in Europe. Its university tuitions were free and it was dubbed an“Investment Paradise.”
我仔細探討其原因，發現愛爾蘭的改變最主要來自於愛爾蘭人思考邏輯的轉變，跳脫過去凡事對抗的慣性思維，遇到問題時不是爭論問題、解釋問題、解釋立場（make a point），而是想辦法找出實際具體的解決方案（make a difference）。有句話說：「If you are not part of solution, you will be part of problem.」，如果你不是解決問題的一部分，你就是製造問題的一部分。愛爾蘭的轉變值得我們省思，希望台灣社會能夠學習用這種態度來面對問題、思考問題、解決問題。
I looked into its causes and discovered that it is because the Irish people have undergone drastic changes in the way they think. Instead of customary reactive thinking–arguing a point and making a point, they now try to make a difference. There is proverb “if you are not part of solution, you will be part of problem.” So, I hope our people would reflect on and learn from the Irish experience—face the problem, ponder alternatives, and find the solution.
我所期盼的台灣社會
What I Expect
二次大戰後，大家在台灣這塊土地上一起生活60多年，既有過去的共同歷史，也有未來的共同利益，甚至共同體意識也已經形成了。因此，要解決目前困境，其實並不難，只要釐清幾個基本觀念，調整我們的態度，以「解決問題」的角度，擴大內部共識，縮小彼此差異，就能夠逐步培養優質的民主素養，進一步形塑成熟的公民社會。以下是我認為我們應該做的:
Since the end of World War II, the residents ofTaiwanhave lived together for more than sixty years. We share a common history, form a common purpose, and are destined to have a common future. Therefore, it is not difficult for us to meet our present-day challenges as long as we are willing to change our way of thinking and adjust our attitudes, namely, maximizing our consensus and minimizing our differences. With this we can improve the quality of our democracy and shape a mature civil society. Here is what we should do:
一、尊重包容、理性溝通：
1. Toleration and Dialogue
記得第一次拜訪法鼓山聖嚴法師，師父對我說：「有意見的人是朋友，不是敵人，這是政治人物應有的胸襟」。我回答說：「師父，這是宗教家、道德家才有的層次，我是一般世俗人，很難做到；但我會努力做到『有意見的人是競爭對手，不是敵人』」。
First is tolerance and dialogue. I remember the first time I paid a visit to Master Sheng-Yen some years ago. He enlightened me: “For statesmen, those who disagree with you are friends not enemies.” I replied: “Master, You are a religionist and moralist, but I am only an ordinary man. Still, I’ll try to adhere to the belief that those who disagree with me are my competitors, not enemies.”
十八世紀法國哲學家伏爾泰說過：「雖然我並不同意你的意見，但我會誓死捍衛你發言的權利。」，「服從多數」是天經地義，「尊重少數」更是天經地義、理所當然。只有在極權或是威權政府下，才會有因操作壓迫而形成的絕對性民意。在多元化、民主開放的社會，意見不同是很正常的，不需大驚小怪。有了這樣的基本認知，我們才能學會對不同意見的尊重與包容，也才能學會用尊重包容的態度，來面對問題、來思考問題。
The French philosopher Voltaire once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Accepting majority rule is natural, but respecting minority opinion is even more important. Only totalitarian or authoritarian regimes would manipulate people to form the absolute people’s will. Diverse opinions on public issues are commonplace in pluralistic democracies. With this basic understanding, we may begin to learn to respect and tolerate differences in pondering over public issues.
有理也要講理、是非也要溫柔。參與公眾事務的人，要先以尊重包容的態度來看待不同意見，進而以理性溝通的方法，來與不同意見的人溝通。在自由民主開放的社會，只有「想法不同的競爭對手」，絕對沒有「你死我活的敵人」，政治人物若能如此，我相信有很多問題都能迎刃而解。政治人物若無能力處理不同的意見，化解歧見，則沒有資格當一個現代化的政治人物。
Furthermore, we must be reasonable even though we need to stick to our positions; and we must be gentle in trying to persuade our opposition. Those who are engaged in public affairs must respect disparate positions and exchange views with the opponents. In pluralistic democracies, there are no enemies, only competitors. If all politicians are willing to embrace this idea, I trust that most issues can be resolved. Without such a predisposition, no one is qualified as a leader in the modern world.
二、誠實信諾、正面競爭：
2. Honesty and Commitment
美國前副國務卿佐立克（Zoellick）曾說：「『信守承諾』在政治上、外交上，是很重要的事。」正如西方社會的至理名言：『誠實』是最好的政策。誠實、尊重，是人之所以為人的基本道理，與人對話溝通，尤其與立場意見不同的人，一定要內心誠實，態度誠懇，待人包容，才能受人信任，才能建立互信的基礎。若能被信任，即使政治立場不同，反對的聲音至少可以減弱，甚至還可以理性對話；若不被信任，就算政治立場一致，也難合作共事。能否被信任是最基本的問題，而要得到信任，就必須要誠實。
The second is honesty and commitment. Robert Bruce Zoellick, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, once said, “Keeping commitment is imperative both in domestic and foreign policy making.” In Western society there is a maxim: “Honesty is the best policy.” Honesty and respect are two fundamental characteristics of human beings. When we communicate with other people, especially those with whom we disagree, we must be honest, sincere, and tolerant, so that we can win their trust. If there is trust, we can at least weaken our opponents’ resistance and can even have rational dialogues with them. If there is no trust, even comrades cannot get along with one another. Winning trust is imperative, and in order to win trust we must be honest and sincere.
台灣社會目前的政黨競爭，可說是「勇於反對、怯於建言」。對於對手的政策，很容易提出反對與批評，但自己的政策卻始終模糊不清。只期待對手犯錯來累積自己的政治實力，靠對方犯錯來製造自己贏的機會，無助於台灣社會的真正提升與進步。
Political contests among political parties inTaiwannowadays can be characterized as “antagonism without constructive criticism.” It is easy to dismiss and assault our opponent’s position, but difficult to express our own. Accumulating one’s political strength and creating one’s opportunity to win elections by drawing attention to opponents’ mistakes is not going to upgradeTaiwan’s democracy.
一位武林高手在一次比武中，因找不到對手的破綻，而被對手擊敗；後來，他就去求教一位禪師。禪師在地上劃了一條長線，要求在不能擦掉這條線的情況下，令這條線變短。武林高手百思不得其解。後來，禪師在原來那條線的旁邊，又劃了一條更長的線，兩相比較，原來的線看起來確實變短許多。禪師解釋道：「打敗對手，不在攻擊對手的弱點，只要你自己變強，對手便如原先那條線一樣，也在無形中變弱了。」
Once upon a time, a kung-fu fighter lost a fight because he failed to find any weakness in his opponent. He went to ask a Zen master. The Master drew a line on the ground and asked him to make it shorter without erasing any portion. The fighter could not figure out the answer. The Master then drew a parallel line longer than the first one and explained: In order to defeat your opponent, you need to strengthen yourself rather than to attack his weakness. Much like you draw a longer line to beat the shorter one, you become stronger to beat your opponent’s weakness.
在野黨的天職固然是監督、反對與批評；但只靠反對，不會成為執政黨。在承平時代，可以用監督、制衡、對抗等「硬民主」的方式，來爭取選民的認同；然而，在國家社會面對巨大挑戰時，卻應該以尊重、溝通、對話、協商等「軟民主」的方式，合作共赴國難，這才是真正的「忠誠的反對黨」。國、民兩黨都曾執政過，非常清楚「當家才知持家的苦」，因此，一個負責任的政黨對某一政策有異議，應該提出「替代方案」或「配套措施」，要有對策可供人民選擇，如此反對才是有理，才是正面的競爭。
The opposition party’s bound duty is to oversee, oppose, and criticize the government. However, criticizing alone would not make an opposition party a ruling party. At peaceful times, opposition parties can win electoral approval by such “hard democratic means” as overseeing, checking, and balancing. However, at challenging times, it is necessary to use such“soft democratic methods” as respect, communication, dialogue, and negotiation to work with the government to confront the problems together. This is what “loyal opposition” really means. Both the KMT and the DPP have been in power and should know “only those in charge know how difficult it is to be in charge.” Therefore, in opposing a policy the opposition party has to propose an alternative policy or a complementary measure to let people choose. This is what true opposition and competition means.
三、擴大共識、人民再起：
3. Enlarging Consensus and People’s Rise
有一次應邀在某社團演講後，有位聽眾極力稱讚我，在威權時代敢於批評領導人，勇於推動台灣主權、自由民主，不僅被依首謀內亂罪通緝，在幫派大老陳啟禮的自白書中，也表明要到美國暗殺我；1991年又冒險闖關回國被捕，這些事蹟實在需要很大的勇氣。我回答說：「當時年紀輕輕，『青瞑牛不驚槍』，就是一直做就對了」。不過回國後，我倒有不同的心境。在民主開放的社會，罵人不需要勇氣，只要有脾氣就可以；但是當不同政治立場、不同意識形態的對手，做了對的事，要開口稱讚他時，我認為需要比我當年更大的勇氣。
The third is enlarging consensus and people’s rise. I was once invited by a social club to deliver a speech. A man in the audience praised me for having been bravely defiant against the authoritarian regime in the past by promotingTaiwan’s independence, freedom, and democracy. He said, “The government wanted to arrest you for sedition and, as mafia boss Chen said in his confession, he wanted to assassinate you. In 1991, you returned voluntarily toTaiwanto be arrested. All these must have demanded a great deal of courage.” I replied, “I was too young to know what fear was. I just did it.” Since I returned toTaiwanI have changed my mindset. In an open democracy, one does not need a great deal of courage, but rather a bad temper to reprimand others. However, if you need to praise your opponent who holds a different political view and ideology from yours it does require much more courage.
國、民兩黨、藍綠政治人物確實有不同的地方，但是也有很多相同之處。有爭論的就暫時擱置，從沒有爭議的先做。我們不要一味強調不同的地方，而應透過接觸協商，擴大有共識的議題，縮小不相同的部分。即使短期間無法取得共識，也可以暫時擱置，agree to disagree互相尊重；對於有共識的議題，就攜手共同合作推動。因為只要有機會共事，就可增進相互了解，會慢慢建立起互信的基礎，之後事情會越來越順利。
The KMT and DPP are different in many ways, but they do share many commonalities. They must put aside controversial issues for the time being and work on the less controversial ones right away. By forgoing differences, they may enlarge their consensus through dialogue and negotiation. Even if consensus is difficult to reach, they may want to agree to disagree. While working together on issues with consensus, both parties may have the opportunity to enhance mutual understanding and trust. Things will be easier to work out when there is mutual understanding and trust.
羅馬帝國時期凱撒大帝（Julius Caesar）被親信布魯塔斯（Brutus）刺殺時，布魯塔斯說：「沒有想到你殘忍得像隻獅子」，凱撒在斷氣前回答他說：「因為羅馬的人民軟弱得像群綿羊」。政治人物的作為，固然應該苛責；然而有什麼樣的選民，就有什麼樣的政治人物。政治人物的沉淪，恐怕人民也應當負起相當的責任，因為人民常常將自身的權利保障，委由特定政黨行使。日前蔣友柏先生在演講中特別提到：「台灣政府是最落伍的品牌」，政府如此，政黨更是如此。目前台灣社會公民意識微弱，到處都是感性熱情的選民，卻鮮少理性參與的公民；台灣要再進步，只有靠人民自覺，展現人民力量，用社會力推動，包括第三部門、非政府組織的建立，公民意識的形塑等等，讓人民成為國家真正的主人，這才是台灣社會發展的希望。
Julius Caesar was assassinated by his confidant, Brutus. As Caesar was dying, Brutus asked him, “Why are you as cruel as a lion?” Caesar uttered his final words, “It is because the Romans are so weak as sheep.” Even though politicians should be reprimanded for their misconducts, those who have elected them are to be blamed to some degree because voters delegate a lot of power to politicians and political parties. Yu-bou Chiang, a famous designer and the great-grandson of the late Chiang Kai-shek, recently scorned the government as the “most outdated name brand inTaiwan.” I would add that the presentTaiwanis full of emotionally charged voters who are unable to participate in public affairs rationally. ForTaiwanto upgrade, the masses must be conscious of such social forces as the Third Sector and NGOs. Therefore, the future ofTaiwanlies in the people who have a strong sense of citizenship and are determined to become the true masters of the country.
文化部長龍應台曾發表一篇文章：「請用文明來說服我—給胡錦濤先生的公開信」，文章中提到感性上，她自認是華人，但理性上，目前統治中國的政權，缺乏自由、民主、人權、法治、人文素養等等普世價值，所以她無法認同中華人民共和國。我想，「等著被人說服」，也許太過於被動、消極；但我相信只要台灣人民，不分朝野、不分藍綠，「尊重包容、理性溝通」、「誠實信諾、正面競爭」、「擴大共識、人民再起」，一定可以像開釋武林高手的禪師一般，以自信的態度，向中國當局說，台灣將用文明來說服你。
Minister of Culture Lung Ying-Tai recently published the article “An Open Letter to Chinese Leader Hu Jintao.” She maintains that although being an ethnic Chinese sentimentally, she disapproves of the CCP regime because there is no freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law, and human touch in presentChina. If we stick to Toleration and Dialogue, Honesty and Commitment, and Enlarging Consensus and People’s Rise, we are confident enough to say to the Chinese leaders:Taiwanwould use civilization to persuade you.
我看見未來的台灣社會
What I Envision for the Future of Taiwan
台灣是一個小國，在國際上求生存發展，以小事大要以智慧，不要耍「特技表演」、「青瞑牛不驚槍」的把戲。就以北歐小國芬蘭為例，事實上俄羅斯之於芬蘭，有如中國之於台灣，是威脅、也是機會。記得幾年前，芬蘭的國防部長造訪美國首都華盛頓，在公開演講時，就率性直說，今日芬蘭的三大威脅是：俄羅斯、俄羅斯、俄羅斯。不過芬蘭人知道和俄羅斯共處，不能有對抗意識，只有務實的政治路線。但芬蘭人的務實，並不是短視的現實主義，而是深謀遠慮後的精算抉擇，明確掌握小國生存之道。就因為堅定走務實路線，讓芬蘭即使面對大國強鄰，也能發展成世界公認：競爭力最強、教育第一、富強又公平，環境優、最清廉、最幸福的國家。
As a small country, Taiwanneeds wisdom to learn to live with its neighboring giants to survive in the international society. We don’t want to live dangerously or blindly. Finlandis to Russiaas Taiwanis to China; there are opportunities as well as threats. I recall that the Finnish Minister of Defense visited the UnitedStatea few years ago. In a public speech in WashingtonD.C., he bluntly said that the three largest threats to Finlandare Russia, Russia, and Russia. Finnish people are practical enough to realize that they must get along with Russia, even though they did go to war with Russiatwice in the Winter War (1939–1940) and the Continuation War (1941–1944). Right now,Finland is one of the happiest countries in the world and prides itself in maintaining a high level of competitiveness, affluence, welfare, equal and excellent education, a clean environment, and a clean government.
芬蘭國家生存與發展的思維、手法與經驗，值得台灣好好學習。特別是面對全球化的浪潮與中國崛起的壓力，台灣社會倘若政爭不斷，無法團結，分裂的房子無法立足，撕裂的國家無法前進，台灣必輸無疑。我常說：台海兩岸和平是台灣島內政治和諧的副產品。國內和諧，國際和平的機會就很大。只要藍綠政治人物以一種新思維、新視野的態度，彼此多一點尊重、多一點包容，少一點指責、少一點批評，小小的一步就能解決許多問題，我相信以台灣人的智慧，沒有什麼解決不了的困境。
Facing the challenges of globalization andChina’s rise, we may learn some lessons fromFinland, particularly its strategies for survival and development. As a torn family is destined to fall down, a torn country is going nowhere. With endless political struggles, a dividedTaiwanis doomed. As I often say, peaceful relations withChinacan only come from harmonious domestic relations among major political parties. In other words, domestic harmony is conducive to external peace. With more respect and toleration, and less finger-pointing and criticism, we can meet any challenges.
我曾以2006年雪山隧道通車典禮的事來做說明。當初在電視看到雪山隧道的通車典禮時，我的心情相當複雜：這個世界級、極度困難的工程，台灣能夠完成，我覺得非常驕傲；但另一方面我也覺得很惋惜。在通車典禮的紅色吉普車上坐著蘇貞昌、謝長廷、游錫堃、張俊雄，還少了一位唐飛（不過當時唐飛可能不在國內，還算是情有可原）。但是開通雪山隧道是1990年，郝柏村當行政院長時的決策，簡又新也說那是他任交通部長時動土的。政府的施政，一向都是延續性政策，前人決策、現任施作、後任完工，自屬事理至明。也許當時的民進黨執政當局可以用更誠懇開放的態度，邀請歷任的行政院長郝柏村、連戰、蕭萬長來參加通車典禮，這不是搶功與否的問題，而是風度的問題。我相信用這樣的態度做事，小小的一步，一定會引起政治上的化學作用，政治上的諸多紛爭必能減少許多，同時也能贏得大家的讚賞。
I once told the story of the 8.042 mile long Hsueh-shan (SnowMountain) Tunnel that connects Taipeiand Yilan. As I was watching the opening ceremonies on TV in 2006, I was proud of it being the second longest highway tunnel in East Asia and the fifth longest in the world. Yet I felt sad because all current and past premiers of the DPP were on the leading jeep. Missing was Tang Fei of the KMT As we know, the tunnel construction was decided in 1991 by Premier Hau Pei-tsun and Minister of Transportation Chien Yo-sin under the KMT government. The project was executed and completed through different administrations. It would have been much better if all premiers, KMT and DPP alike, were on that jeep. This should have been a matter of courtesy and respect, not credibility for any administration. I believe that such courtesy and respect would have gradually bred mutual respect, contributing to political tolerance and reconciliation between KMT and DPP.
台獨前輩王育德大著「苦悶的台灣歷史」，李登輝前總統在接受司馬遼太郎訪問時，則提到「生為台灣人的悲哀」。這種論點，固然是台灣歷史悲壯的一面；然而也有像2002年普立茲獎得主、暢銷書「世界是平的」、「世界又熱、又平、又擠」的作者湯馬斯·佛里曼（Thomas L. Friedman），今年（2012）3月在『紐約時報』專欄上寫道，除了美國之外，他最喜愛的國家就是台灣，且表示身為台灣人是全世界最幸福的事。對同一事物的不同看法，自屬常態，更何況是現今台灣社會多樣的面貌與多元的立場。不過，我想以卡內基美隆大學（Carnegie Mellon University）教授蘭迪‧波許（Randy Pausch）的話，來提醒所有台灣人民。波許教授罹患了胰臟癌，在他人生的最後一刻再次站上講台，跟學生以及聽眾分享他這一生所體會到的經驗。他說：「我們不能決定人生會拿到什麼牌，但我們能決定如何打好手上的牌。」
My great predecessor of the Taiwan Independence Movement Ong Iok-tek (1924-85) wrote of Taiwan’s sorrow in his book entitled The Disheartened History of Taiwan published in 1979. Former President Lee Teng-hui also mentioned the “Sorrow of Being Born as a Taiwanese.” Both mirror the rueful side of Taiwan’s past. And yet, Thomas L. Friedman, three time Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The World Is Flat and Hot, Flat, and Crowed, wrote in March 2012 in The New York Times thatTaiwan is his favorite country besides theUnited States. To him the Taiwanese are the luckiest people in the world. Diverse opinions on the same subject are quite common, particularly in this pluralistic age.
I like to remind my Taiwanese compatriots with the words of Randy Pausch (1960-2008), Professor of Computer Science at CarnegieMellonUniversity. After learning that he had only 3-6 months to live for his pancreatic cancer in 2006, he gave an encouraging lecture “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams” in 2007. He said, “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, but it’s up to us to decide how to play them.”
台灣的現狀，何嘗不是如此。台灣社會的對立，未必全因我們而起；但無論如何，切勿因我們而加劇，更期盼由我們開始拋出包容尊重、和諧共生的橄欖枝，共同解決爭議、化解對立。讓我們一起共同追求一個有希臘的理性哲學、羅馬的法律典章、宗教家的慈悲寬懷、文化優質的民主國家。
This applies toTaiwanat the present time. Political confrontations and problems may not be caused by us, but we have the responsibility not to make them worse. I sincerely hope we can extend the olive branch to one another with the ideals of toleration, respect, coexistence, and harmony and begin to work together on our problems. Together, let’s pursue a democratic country with Greek rationalism, Roman institutions, religious compassions, and fine culture.