Friday, March 25, 2005
「民主和平護台灣大聯盟」 - Demo on3-26-2005
「民主和平護台灣大聯盟」為台灣的民主自由和平所付出的心力貢獻值得肯定與支持。台灣民眾共同信守、堅持的自由、民主、和平等理念，在三二六當天完整的表達，強力的顯示台灣民眾愛好 democracy, freedom, and peace 的決心。三二六這個日子，全世界都在看台灣，期待全民都能通過考驗，成為真正的贏家。
Monday, March 21, 2005
Right of Free Will – 自由意識選擇權
Right of Free Will – 自由意識選擇權
In his “Universal Principle of Right”, philosopher Immanuel Kant said:
[Every action is right which in itself, or in the maxim on which is proceeds, is such that it can coexist along with the freedom of the will of each and all in action, according to a universal law.
I, then, my action or my condition generally can coexist with the freedom of every others, according to a universal law, any one does me a wrong who hinders me in the performance of this action, or in the maintenance of this condition. For such a hindrance or obstruction can not coexist with freedom according to universal laws.
It follows also that I can not be demanded as a matter of right, that this universal principle of all maxims shall itself be adopted as my maxim, that is, that I shall make it the maxim of my actions. For anyone may be free, although his freedom is entirely indifferent to me, or even if I wish in my heart to infringe it, so long as I do not actually violate tha freedom by my external action. Ethics, however, as distinguished from jurisprudence, impose upon me the obligation to make the fulfillment of right a maxim of my conduct.
The universal law of right may be then be expressed thus: ”Act externally in such a manner that the free exercise of thy will may be able to coexist with the freedom of all others, according a universal law.”………..] * End of quote.
Th philosophy of Right of Free Will under the context of Kant’s universal principleof right has been the driving force of Western civilization. It is also the principle of democracy in modern society.
Recently, the hot news in Taiwan are: (1) the 319 demonstration for setting up special investigation committee on the assassination attempt on DPP presidential and VP candidates Mr. Chen Shui-ben and Ms Lu Shio-lien on March 19, 2004; (2) Passing of “Anti-Secession Law” (ASL) by NCPR of PRC on March 14. Majority of people on Taiwan resent this action of PRC even though PRC officials said it is only applicable when Taiwan decides to go independent. President Chen Shui-ben called for massive demonstration on 326 to protest this law. According to the poll conducted by China Times ( a newspaper company in Taiwan), the poll showed that 62% of those interviewed can’t accept ASL. However, there is only 23% of the interviewed persons indicated they are pro-Taiwan Independence. Many scholars and writers in Taiwan openly stated that they are against ASL mainly the law is against the right of free will in the modern civilized society. This group of people said that although the poll indicates only 23% of people polled is pro-Taiwan Independence and they planned to join the 326 demonstration, majority of 62% will still speak out for those 23% to protest against ASL.
I believe all people on Taiwan should speak out and protest the violation of their Right of Free Will by ASL. Collaterally, each political party in Taiwan should proudly declares their party's political ideology and policy but avoid claiming that they represent all people on Taiwan. By doing that (the latter one), they are violating the same right of other parties. This is a good time to show the world the true democracy of Taiwan.
In his “Universal Principle of Right”, philosopher Immanuel Kant said:
[Every action is right which in itself, or in the maxim on which is proceeds, is such that it can coexist along with the freedom of the will of each and all in action, according to a universal law.
I, then, my action or my condition generally can coexist with the freedom of every others, according to a universal law, any one does me a wrong who hinders me in the performance of this action, or in the maintenance of this condition. For such a hindrance or obstruction can not coexist with freedom according to universal laws.
It follows also that I can not be demanded as a matter of right, that this universal principle of all maxims shall itself be adopted as my maxim, that is, that I shall make it the maxim of my actions. For anyone may be free, although his freedom is entirely indifferent to me, or even if I wish in my heart to infringe it, so long as I do not actually violate tha freedom by my external action. Ethics, however, as distinguished from jurisprudence, impose upon me the obligation to make the fulfillment of right a maxim of my conduct.
The universal law of right may be then be expressed thus: ”Act externally in such a manner that the free exercise of thy will may be able to coexist with the freedom of all others, according a universal law.”………..] * End of quote.
Th philosophy of Right of Free Will under the context of Kant’s universal principleof right has been the driving force of Western civilization. It is also the principle of democracy in modern society.
Recently, the hot news in Taiwan are: (1) the 319 demonstration for setting up special investigation committee on the assassination attempt on DPP presidential and VP candidates Mr. Chen Shui-ben and Ms Lu Shio-lien on March 19, 2004; (2) Passing of “Anti-Secession Law” (ASL) by NCPR of PRC on March 14. Majority of people on Taiwan resent this action of PRC even though PRC officials said it is only applicable when Taiwan decides to go independent. President Chen Shui-ben called for massive demonstration on 326 to protest this law. According to the poll conducted by China Times ( a newspaper company in Taiwan), the poll showed that 62% of those interviewed can’t accept ASL. However, there is only 23% of the interviewed persons indicated they are pro-Taiwan Independence. Many scholars and writers in Taiwan openly stated that they are against ASL mainly the law is against the right of free will in the modern civilized society. This group of people said that although the poll indicates only 23% of people polled is pro-Taiwan Independence and they planned to join the 326 demonstration, majority of 62% will still speak out for those 23% to protest against ASL.
I believe all people on Taiwan should speak out and protest the violation of their Right of Free Will by ASL. Collaterally, each political party in Taiwan should proudly declares their party's political ideology and policy but avoid claiming that they represent all people on Taiwan. By doing that (the latter one), they are violating the same right of other parties. This is a good time to show the world the true democracy of Taiwan.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Modern Deadly Sins
Although this subject may not link directly to the democracy, but I think it will help educating a better citizen who is the building element of the society. We have heard about the list of "Seven Deadly Sins" (by Thomas Aquinas in 13th century) through our life . The list includes, by alphabetical order, (1) Anger(忿怒);(2) Envy(嫉妒);(3) Gluttony(貪吃);(4) Greed(貪婪);(5) Lust(色慾);(6) Pride(傲慢);(7) Sloth(怠惰).
According to Parade's report (3/20/2005), British BBS found from their poll that only "Greed" remains from the original list of sins. The updated list of Seven Deadly Sins is now (also listed in alphabetical order)- (1) Adultery(通姦);(2) Bigotry(頑固的偏見);(3) Cruelty(殘酷);(4)Dishonest(欺詐);(5) Greed(貪婪);(6) Hypocrisy(偽善);(7) Selfishness(自私).
This imples the dynamic changes in morality as our society changes.
Just a short note for myself. I hope this is helpful to you too. ~~~ Big Eagle ~~
According to Parade's report (3/20/2005), British BBS found from their poll that only "Greed" remains from the original list of sins. The updated list of Seven Deadly Sins is now (also listed in alphabetical order)- (1) Adultery(通姦);(2) Bigotry(頑固的偏見);(3) Cruelty(殘酷);(4)Dishonest(欺詐);(5) Greed(貪婪);(6) Hypocrisy(偽善);(7) Selfishness(自私).
This imples the dynamic changes in morality as our society changes.
Just a short note for myself. I hope this is helpful to you too. ~~~ Big Eagle ~~
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
State, Nation, and Sovereignty - 談國家主權
State, Nation, and Sovereignty
Many of us may feel somewhat confused by the statements in emails that claim
“Taiwan is a de facto (not the de jure) State”.
We also read the news from Taiwan which quoted that “Taiwan is an independent nation”, said Lee Teng-Huei, the past President of Taiwan. However, we also saw the present President Chen Shui-bian said “..(I) will not declare independent” on TV. Weeks before that we had also heard US Secretary of States, Collin Power, said “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation. [see Big Eagle Note at the bottom of this article]
Did you get confused by these statements about the status of Taiwan? Only recently, there are two law professors, both are member of NATPA, published their view in the Editorials section of Taipei Times. On March 12, 2005, Prof. Frank Chiang wrote “Sadly, Taiwan is still not a sovereign state”. Prof. Chiang argued that Taiwan is a political entity, not a State, and it has no sovereignty. On March 15, 2005, Prof. Chen Lung-chu wrote “Challenges lie ahead in staying on course”. In which, Prof. Chen claims “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent State. Neither Taiwan nor China belongs to each other.”
Therefore, we face a task to understand the correct meaning of Country, State, Nation, and Sovereignty. Thank to Prof. K.S. Huang’s effort, he found a good reference for this matter. According to Matt Rosenberg of Your Guide to Geology (About Inc.,A PRIMEDIA Company), here are the definitions we have been looking for:
A State (note the capital “S”) is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.
A nation is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.
An independent State (or country) is defined when it –
*Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are all right);
*Has people who live there on an on-going basis;
*Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money;
*Has the power of social engineering, such as education;
*Has a transportation system for moving goods and people;
*Has a government which provides public services and police power;
*Has sovereignty. No other States should have power over the country’s territory;
*Has external recognition. A country has been “voted into the club” by other countries.
Territories of country or individual parts of a country are not countries in their countries. Example of entities are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand excellent examples of nation-state.
Some States have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. United States is also a nation-state because of the shared “American “culture.”
From the above definitions of an independent State (or country), Taiwan is not yet a de jure State or an independent country because Taiwan has not yet obtained the external recognition (by UN), and Taiwan’s sovereignty is still in dispute because:
(1) ROC is not a State representing Taiwan. ROC government is a government in exile,
(2) Taiwan has no her own government, constitution.
Therefore, it is correct to say that “challenges lie ahead.”
[Big Eagle Note] On the list of "Independent States in the world" published by US State Department, Taiwan is separately listed in "Other" category.
Independent States in the World
..... omit the 191 countries on the list ...
Other: Taiwan (see note 6)
Note 6: Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)
Note 3: With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.
Many of us may feel somewhat confused by the statements in emails that claim
“Taiwan is a de facto (not the de jure) State”.
We also read the news from Taiwan which quoted that “Taiwan is an independent nation”, said Lee Teng-Huei, the past President of Taiwan. However, we also saw the present President Chen Shui-bian said “..(I) will not declare independent” on TV. Weeks before that we had also heard US Secretary of States, Collin Power, said “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation. [see Big Eagle Note at the bottom of this article]
Did you get confused by these statements about the status of Taiwan? Only recently, there are two law professors, both are member of NATPA, published their view in the Editorials section of Taipei Times. On March 12, 2005, Prof. Frank Chiang wrote “Sadly, Taiwan is still not a sovereign state”. Prof. Chiang argued that Taiwan is a political entity, not a State, and it has no sovereignty. On March 15, 2005, Prof. Chen Lung-chu wrote “Challenges lie ahead in staying on course”. In which, Prof. Chen claims “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent State. Neither Taiwan nor China belongs to each other.”
Therefore, we face a task to understand the correct meaning of Country, State, Nation, and Sovereignty. Thank to Prof. K.S. Huang’s effort, he found a good reference for this matter. According to Matt Rosenberg of Your Guide to Geology (About Inc.,A PRIMEDIA Company), here are the definitions we have been looking for:
A State (note the capital “S”) is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.
A nation is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.
An independent State (or country) is defined when it –
*Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are all right);
*Has people who live there on an on-going basis;
*Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money;
*Has the power of social engineering, such as education;
*Has a transportation system for moving goods and people;
*Has a government which provides public services and police power;
*Has sovereignty. No other States should have power over the country’s territory;
*Has external recognition. A country has been “voted into the club” by other countries.
Territories of country or individual parts of a country are not countries in their countries. Example of entities are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand excellent examples of nation-state.
Some States have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. United States is also a nation-state because of the shared “American “culture.”
From the above definitions of an independent State (or country), Taiwan is not yet a de jure State or an independent country because Taiwan has not yet obtained the external recognition (by UN), and Taiwan’s sovereignty is still in dispute because:
(1) ROC is not a State representing Taiwan. ROC government is a government in exile,
(2) Taiwan has no her own government, constitution.
Therefore, it is correct to say that “challenges lie ahead.”
[Big Eagle Note] On the list of "Independent States in the world" published by US State Department, Taiwan is separately listed in "Other" category.
Independent States in the World
..... omit the 191 countries on the list ...
Other: Taiwan (see note 6)
Note 6: Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan. (see note 3)
Note 3: With the establishment of diplomatic relations with China on January 1, 1979, the US Government recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.
From Man's Qualification to Leader's Qualification
I have just come across this article about how women weight a man for their ideal partners. After reading it, I found there are close similarities of this list of qualification to the qualification of a leader. I would place a comment at the end of each item of qualification listed in the article. Let me know what you think. This will be an easier and more understandable way to help people to electing a leader.
~~~ BigEagle ~~~
新好男人 10大條件
[聯合新聞網 2005/3/15, 特約記者 吳佩樺／專題報導]
男人看女人，不只要有天使的臉孔、魔鬼的身材，還要有一顆溫柔體貼的心；女人看男人也越來越嚴格，不僅外表俊俏，買的起車和房子是基本條件，還要肯穿起圍裙燒得一手好菜。什麼是現代好男人必備的十大條件：
1.會做菜和家事：會做菜是現代好男人的先決條件，女人可以驕傲地跟朋友說：「我老公很體貼會做菜給我吃喔！」
A leader should be familiar with the operation and function of the organization.
2.肯照顧小孩：好男人總是做的比說的多，當小孩撒尿或大便時，好男人不會嫌他臭，會二話不說去幫小孩換尿布。
A leader should take care of those ethnic minority and those physical and intellectural disabilities.
3.3 高：好男人不僅身高要高、學歷要高還要職位高，不過外表這回事是見仁見智，而且是屬於未滿30歲女人的好男人條件。
A leader should have high standard for achievement, a long range plan for the organization, and high moral standard.
4.羅曼蒂克：好男人絕對不會忘記妳的生日及週年紀念日，甚至還會偶而來個驚喜，讓妳感動落淚。
A leader should always keep close touch with people of the organization.
5.專情：好男人只愛妳一個，什麼林志玲、侯佩岑等超級美女在他眼裡，還是家花最美，就算是真的，也要懂得在妳面前說：「在我心中沒人可以取代你。」
A leader should devote all his/her effort to the organization.
6.老實穩重：好男人就算不會說甜言蜜語，也沒關係，只要有一個可靠的肩膀讓女人依靠。
A leader should keep his/her promises and be honest and trustworhty.
7.孝順父母：好男人不只孝順自己的父母，也孝順妳的父母，他可能會嫌自己的父母囉唆，但絕不會說妳父母壞話。
A leader should respect those precedential decisions of the organization.
8.脾氣好：不管是妳對或他對，好男人總是第一個說「對不起!」；當女人歇斯底里，他也總是能不理會。Rmk by Big Bird : I don't know what is "當女人歇斯底里"
A leader should be calm and never over-react to reactions or suggestions.
9.忠實的聽眾：永遠在妳不開心的時候，好男人會靜靜在妳身邊聽妳吐露委屈，永遠在妳說笑話的時候，他會懂得要笑。
A leader should be open-minded and be trustworthy.
10.幽默風趣：好男人不用是一本笑話大全，但不知道為什麼好男人就是有本事在妳無聊或不開心的時候，讓妳笑。
A leader should be aware of any tension and know to resolve it effectively for the harmony in the organization.
~~ Those Comments in English are provided by Big Eagle ~~
~~~ BigEagle ~~~
新好男人 10大條件
[聯合新聞網 2005/3/15, 特約記者 吳佩樺／專題報導]
男人看女人，不只要有天使的臉孔、魔鬼的身材，還要有一顆溫柔體貼的心；女人看男人也越來越嚴格，不僅外表俊俏，買的起車和房子是基本條件，還要肯穿起圍裙燒得一手好菜。什麼是現代好男人必備的十大條件：
1.會做菜和家事：會做菜是現代好男人的先決條件，女人可以驕傲地跟朋友說：「我老公很體貼會做菜給我吃喔！」
A leader should be familiar with the operation and function of the organization.
2.肯照顧小孩：好男人總是做的比說的多，當小孩撒尿或大便時，好男人不會嫌他臭，會二話不說去幫小孩換尿布。
A leader should take care of those ethnic minority and those physical and intellectural disabilities.
3.3 高：好男人不僅身高要高、學歷要高還要職位高，不過外表這回事是見仁見智，而且是屬於未滿30歲女人的好男人條件。
A leader should have high standard for achievement, a long range plan for the organization, and high moral standard.
4.羅曼蒂克：好男人絕對不會忘記妳的生日及週年紀念日，甚至還會偶而來個驚喜，讓妳感動落淚。
A leader should always keep close touch with people of the organization.
5.專情：好男人只愛妳一個，什麼林志玲、侯佩岑等超級美女在他眼裡，還是家花最美，就算是真的，也要懂得在妳面前說：「在我心中沒人可以取代你。」
A leader should devote all his/her effort to the organization.
6.老實穩重：好男人就算不會說甜言蜜語，也沒關係，只要有一個可靠的肩膀讓女人依靠。
A leader should keep his/her promises and be honest and trustworhty.
7.孝順父母：好男人不只孝順自己的父母，也孝順妳的父母，他可能會嫌自己的父母囉唆，但絕不會說妳父母壞話。
A leader should respect those precedential decisions of the organization.
8.脾氣好：不管是妳對或他對，好男人總是第一個說「對不起!」；當女人歇斯底里，他也總是能不理會。Rmk by Big Bird : I don't know what is "當女人歇斯底里"
A leader should be calm and never over-react to reactions or suggestions.
9.忠實的聽眾：永遠在妳不開心的時候，好男人會靜靜在妳身邊聽妳吐露委屈，永遠在妳說笑話的時候，他會懂得要笑。
A leader should be open-minded and be trustworthy.
10.幽默風趣：好男人不用是一本笑話大全，但不知道為什麼好男人就是有本事在妳無聊或不開心的時候，讓妳笑。
A leader should be aware of any tension and know to resolve it effectively for the harmony in the organization.
~~ Those Comments in English are provided by Big Eagle ~~
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Election and Democracy
In previous posting of "Avoiding Sham Democracy", Mr. David Howell talks about how important a sound constitution is for a true democracy. As we all know that voting is part of democratic exercise, but voting process is often easily manupulated by candidates of parties - particularly in those "Young Democratic Countries." In many cases, people were confused by all the dream-like promises and vicious attacks on the opponent. Misleading and half-true statements often appear in the news, advertisements during the campaign phase. Besides those loyal party members, most voters often face the difficulty of choosing their candidates.
When I visit Taiwan, I like to chat with taxi drivers to survey what are the criteria they used to choose their favorite candidate. I was surprised to find that of all the reasons they listed, none of them said he (no she yet) wants to vote this candidate because he can really make Taiwan more prosperous, society more harmony, and the island become more suitable for living. Nevertheless, it is quite important that this candidate can help his business makes more money.
So I suggested that why don't you select your candidate based on the same condition that a corporation used to pick their CEO. In the democratic country, people are just like the shareholders of the corporation. We all have a big stake on this nation. So why not find a CEO who has the best team to help him making this nation most profitable? Therefore I decided to write an article about how to pick a good candiadte. This article was published on Taiwanese American Foundation (TAF) 2003 Annals. It is available on TAF's website, but I am posting that article here so you can read it right way. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~
從智商談各種衡量人品的商數
李英偉 (台美基金會理事、2001年會長)
今年(2003)七月從報紙看到一則新聞報導說，台積電選用人才將基於「3Qs」辦法。這裡用「3Qs」而不是報上「3Q」是避免與俚語用的3Q﹙代替英文的Thank You﹚混淆。「3Qs」指IQ、EQ、及AQ。Q是英文quotient﹙商數﹚的簡稱。IQ就是大家比較熟悉的『智力商數』﹙Intelligence Quotient﹚的簡稱，EQ是『情緒商數』﹙Emotional Quotient﹚的簡稱，AQ是『逆境商數』﹙Adversity Quotient﹚的簡稱。依據台積電人資長李瑞華先生的解釋，IQ代表邏輯、判斷力及學習能力；EQ象徵情緒控制、熱情及同理心；AQ則是毅力、魄力及耐心的表現。兼備這3Qs才是該公司理想的員工。有人會問這些Qs是怎麼計算出來的呢？這個「3Qs選用辦法」會真的比過去用的選拔方式更公平和能更正確地鑑定一個人的才能及人品嗎？
智力測驗經過教育心理學家數十年的研究及發展，到現在已經被公認是一項用來衡量學童智力狀況的測量。智力，或稱智能，是一個人為適應環境所俱備的能力。它也可以說是一種為了達到目的之評估能力。簡單地說就是一個人的學習能力。專家們設計的智力測驗可以測出兒童的「智力年齡」。把「智力年齡」除以兒童的「生理年齡」所得的商數，再乘以100就是該兒童的『智力商數』﹙簡稱智商，IQ﹚。IQ大於100表示智力比平均智力好，IQ小於100則表示該兒童有需要一些或某種輔導。
EQ是公元1960以來新興的學名。公元1995年Daniel Goleman 在他的書『情緒智力—為什麼它會比智商更重要﹙Emotional Intelligence – Why It Matters More than IQ﹚』不只把過去三十多年的各種有關情緒的學說做個整理，還強調每個人具有天生的情緒智力。他以為這種智力表現在適應、感受、組織、及學習四項功能。簡單的說就是一種建立良好人際關係的能力。這天生的本能會因為環境的影響而發揮或是損壞：比如在幼年及青少年時期受父母、教師或朋友的影響。Peter Salovey 及Jack Major在公元1990就把這種後天對EI的影響程度稱為『情緒商數』﹙簡稱情商，EQ﹚。因為沒有一個標準的測尺來量後天影響的程度，所以EQ沒有標準分數可做比較。EQ只是一個簡便的名稱用來表示情緒的好壞及穩定的程度，尤其在耐心、冷靜以及合群方面的能力。
一旦EQ的Q從數學的商數推展成抽象的後天影響程度，成千上萬的文章在近幾年就把過去形容五覺、六慾、七情的文學加以科學化，馬上就多出了十八個Qs。所謂五覺就是視、聽、嗅、味、觸五種感覺。六慾是食、性、知、利、權、名六項慾望。七情則是喜、怒、哀、樂、愛、戀、懼七樣感情。只要把這五覺、六慾及七情認為是人的潛能，我們就可以把「顯能」及「潛能 」的關係以簡單的公式： 「顯能」= 「潛能」X 「 xQ」； 其中 x 代表五覺六慾及七情的一項。比如老年人視力衰退就以摩登的話說人老「視商—VQ」降低；食慾不振就說「食商—AptQ」很低。求知慾已經早就被用到了，叫做「知識商數— KQ」。
其實「3Qs」中的AQ包括EQ、KQ、CQ﹙創新力Creativity Quotient﹚、SoQ﹙社交能力 Social Quotient﹚、及DQ﹙發展力Development Quotient﹚的特點。道學家也提倡MQ﹙道德商數：Moral Quotient﹚，神學家講究SQ﹙靈氣商數：Spiritual Quotient﹚來評定個人安身立命的程度。其他還有年青人的﹙戀愛商數：Love Quotient﹚用做求偶的條件。政治人物一定喜歡用『意識商數：Conscious Quotient』來決定對某種政治意識的認同程度。可是這樣子把觀念的深淺明暗用簡單的Q代替，只會把觀念變得更加模糊不清，還不如返璞歸真回到原來已經明確的定義。
如果一家民營公司如台積電，為了慎重選用員工而採用「3Qs」甄選辦法，那麼一個國家的人民是不是也應該慎重地用一套辦法來選出能幹的政府官員及民意代表呢？西方人說：什麼樣的人民選出什麼樣的領袖，公司都決定「3Qs」是好的準繩，那麼治理國家的人也應該少不了有高的「3Qs」，並且還需要其他的才能吧。美國Princeton 大學Fred Greenstein教授以為成功的領袖﹙包括總統或總裁﹚應該俱備六種風格：﹙1﹚認知的能力；﹙2﹚高EQ；﹙3﹚有政治技巧；﹙4﹚有政策願景；﹙5﹚有組織能力；﹙6﹚與民眾溝通的能力。我們也許可以加上MQ及「意識商數」作為本土化的需求。
接著的問題是如何才能選出好的領袖呢？為了提昇選舉的品質，落實民主政治，我們實在有必要提昇人民的「選舉智力」﹙Election Intelligence﹚或「選舉商數」﹙Election Quotient﹚。請注意這兩個名詞的簡稱﹙EI或EQ﹚與前面的「情智」和「情商」一樣。作者姑且就叫新的名詞「ElI」及「ElQ」。依作者的調查，這兩個名詞是作者首創的。而且作者認為「選舉智力」比「選舉商數」較有意義。
人民的「選舉智力」大致包括﹙一﹚對候選人的瞭解；﹙二﹚重視各候選人的政見、誠信度。不要以眼前的利益換取以後的後悔；﹙三﹚對選舉制度的瞭解。尤其要瞭解一般民意調查不等於選舉的預測，所以不要有『西瓜靠大邊』的心理；﹙四﹚珍重自己神聖的一票。買選票是犯法，賣選票非但愚蠢同時也犯法。人民的「選舉智力」愈高，政府也就愈有效率，國家也愈早達成富強康樂的境界。
從IQ 在教育的使用到目前EQ在政、商界的重視，誰也沒有想到才半百年的時間，人們的視野會從一個魯迅先生筆下的人物 —「阿Q」演變到舉目皆Q的世界。
When I visit Taiwan, I like to chat with taxi drivers to survey what are the criteria they used to choose their favorite candidate. I was surprised to find that of all the reasons they listed, none of them said he (no she yet) wants to vote this candidate because he can really make Taiwan more prosperous, society more harmony, and the island become more suitable for living. Nevertheless, it is quite important that this candidate can help his business makes more money.
So I suggested that why don't you select your candidate based on the same condition that a corporation used to pick their CEO. In the democratic country, people are just like the shareholders of the corporation. We all have a big stake on this nation. So why not find a CEO who has the best team to help him making this nation most profitable? Therefore I decided to write an article about how to pick a good candiadte. This article was published on Taiwanese American Foundation (TAF) 2003 Annals. It is available on TAF's website, but I am posting that article here so you can read it right way. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~
從智商談各種衡量人品的商數
李英偉 (台美基金會理事、2001年會長)
今年(2003)七月從報紙看到一則新聞報導說，台積電選用人才將基於「3Qs」辦法。這裡用「3Qs」而不是報上「3Q」是避免與俚語用的3Q﹙代替英文的Thank You﹚混淆。「3Qs」指IQ、EQ、及AQ。Q是英文quotient﹙商數﹚的簡稱。IQ就是大家比較熟悉的『智力商數』﹙Intelligence Quotient﹚的簡稱，EQ是『情緒商數』﹙Emotional Quotient﹚的簡稱，AQ是『逆境商數』﹙Adversity Quotient﹚的簡稱。依據台積電人資長李瑞華先生的解釋，IQ代表邏輯、判斷力及學習能力；EQ象徵情緒控制、熱情及同理心；AQ則是毅力、魄力及耐心的表現。兼備這3Qs才是該公司理想的員工。有人會問這些Qs是怎麼計算出來的呢？這個「3Qs選用辦法」會真的比過去用的選拔方式更公平和能更正確地鑑定一個人的才能及人品嗎？
智力測驗經過教育心理學家數十年的研究及發展，到現在已經被公認是一項用來衡量學童智力狀況的測量。智力，或稱智能，是一個人為適應環境所俱備的能力。它也可以說是一種為了達到目的之評估能力。簡單地說就是一個人的學習能力。專家們設計的智力測驗可以測出兒童的「智力年齡」。把「智力年齡」除以兒童的「生理年齡」所得的商數，再乘以100就是該兒童的『智力商數』﹙簡稱智商，IQ﹚。IQ大於100表示智力比平均智力好，IQ小於100則表示該兒童有需要一些或某種輔導。
EQ是公元1960以來新興的學名。公元1995年Daniel Goleman 在他的書『情緒智力—為什麼它會比智商更重要﹙Emotional Intelligence – Why It Matters More than IQ﹚』不只把過去三十多年的各種有關情緒的學說做個整理，還強調每個人具有天生的情緒智力。他以為這種智力表現在適應、感受、組織、及學習四項功能。簡單的說就是一種建立良好人際關係的能力。這天生的本能會因為環境的影響而發揮或是損壞：比如在幼年及青少年時期受父母、教師或朋友的影響。Peter Salovey 及Jack Major在公元1990就把這種後天對EI的影響程度稱為『情緒商數』﹙簡稱情商，EQ﹚。因為沒有一個標準的測尺來量後天影響的程度，所以EQ沒有標準分數可做比較。EQ只是一個簡便的名稱用來表示情緒的好壞及穩定的程度，尤其在耐心、冷靜以及合群方面的能力。
一旦EQ的Q從數學的商數推展成抽象的後天影響程度，成千上萬的文章在近幾年就把過去形容五覺、六慾、七情的文學加以科學化，馬上就多出了十八個Qs。所謂五覺就是視、聽、嗅、味、觸五種感覺。六慾是食、性、知、利、權、名六項慾望。七情則是喜、怒、哀、樂、愛、戀、懼七樣感情。只要把這五覺、六慾及七情認為是人的潛能，我們就可以把「顯能」及「潛能 」的關係以簡單的公式： 「顯能」= 「潛能」X 「 xQ」； 其中 x 代表五覺六慾及七情的一項。比如老年人視力衰退就以摩登的話說人老「視商—VQ」降低；食慾不振就說「食商—AptQ」很低。求知慾已經早就被用到了，叫做「知識商數— KQ」。
其實「3Qs」中的AQ包括EQ、KQ、CQ﹙創新力Creativity Quotient﹚、SoQ﹙社交能力 Social Quotient﹚、及DQ﹙發展力Development Quotient﹚的特點。道學家也提倡MQ﹙道德商數：Moral Quotient﹚，神學家講究SQ﹙靈氣商數：Spiritual Quotient﹚來評定個人安身立命的程度。其他還有年青人的﹙戀愛商數：Love Quotient﹚用做求偶的條件。政治人物一定喜歡用『意識商數：Conscious Quotient』來決定對某種政治意識的認同程度。可是這樣子把觀念的深淺明暗用簡單的Q代替，只會把觀念變得更加模糊不清，還不如返璞歸真回到原來已經明確的定義。
如果一家民營公司如台積電，為了慎重選用員工而採用「3Qs」甄選辦法，那麼一個國家的人民是不是也應該慎重地用一套辦法來選出能幹的政府官員及民意代表呢？西方人說：什麼樣的人民選出什麼樣的領袖，公司都決定「3Qs」是好的準繩，那麼治理國家的人也應該少不了有高的「3Qs」，並且還需要其他的才能吧。美國Princeton 大學Fred Greenstein教授以為成功的領袖﹙包括總統或總裁﹚應該俱備六種風格：﹙1﹚認知的能力；﹙2﹚高EQ；﹙3﹚有政治技巧；﹙4﹚有政策願景；﹙5﹚有組織能力；﹙6﹚與民眾溝通的能力。我們也許可以加上MQ及「意識商數」作為本土化的需求。
接著的問題是如何才能選出好的領袖呢？為了提昇選舉的品質，落實民主政治，我們實在有必要提昇人民的「選舉智力」﹙Election Intelligence﹚或「選舉商數」﹙Election Quotient﹚。請注意這兩個名詞的簡稱﹙EI或EQ﹚與前面的「情智」和「情商」一樣。作者姑且就叫新的名詞「ElI」及「ElQ」。依作者的調查，這兩個名詞是作者首創的。而且作者認為「選舉智力」比「選舉商數」較有意義。
人民的「選舉智力」大致包括﹙一﹚對候選人的瞭解；﹙二﹚重視各候選人的政見、誠信度。不要以眼前的利益換取以後的後悔；﹙三﹚對選舉制度的瞭解。尤其要瞭解一般民意調查不等於選舉的預測，所以不要有『西瓜靠大邊』的心理；﹙四﹚珍重自己神聖的一票。買選票是犯法，賣選票非但愚蠢同時也犯法。人民的「選舉智力」愈高，政府也就愈有效率，國家也愈早達成富強康樂的境界。
從IQ 在教育的使用到目前EQ在政、商界的重視，誰也沒有想到才半百年的時間，人們的視野會從一個魯迅先生筆下的人物 —「阿Q」演變到舉目皆Q的世界。
Friday, March 11, 2005
Shocking! Taiwan is about to dissove NRC..
While browsing the Net tonight, I noticed a small headline: "吳茂昆對國科會裁併態度消極 立委直指他在「自我了斷」". What is going on? NRC (National Science Council) will be dissoved and will become an office for coordinating the various policy that related with science and technology. The report mention even many legislators couldn't believe Dr. Wu, head of NRC, let that happened. - "根據行政院提出的政府組織再造中規定，在科技法規政策部分交由國家發展暨科技委員會管轄，科學園區則劃歸經濟部統籌，至於補助科學研究計畫，則由行政法人基金會管理，過去掌管政策、科學園區、補助計畫等事宜的國科會將不復存在。 ........ 國科會主委吳茂昆說，所謂把國科會一分為三，個人的確是不支持，去年已經向組織再造委員會提出保留的建議，但是行政院版本已經定案，身為行政團隊的一份子，自己也不方便再說什麼，....."
I believe this is a bad decision for the development of R&D in Taiwan. I don't see the mention of who will take care of the R&D in university and graduate schools, not to mention the science projects in high schools. I shall quote the comment from 打工仔 , who already had his advanced degree and is now working abroad, to show even a graduate student can see how serious damage can be made by this decision. ~~ Big Eagle ~~
"臺灣的科技龍頭國科會如今慘到被瓜分，指揮官還不敢站出來講話，不知道未來臺灣基礎科學的發展將會成爲什麽情況。當然，直屬總統府管轄，資源豐沛，兵強馬壯的中研院不必擔心未來科研經費以及科研方向受到影響。不知道是不是這個原因使得中研院對於國科會被裁並的可能性不聞不問，但是，沒有強有力的基礎科學做支撐，未來中研院在人才人力的獲得上，難免不受到波及。 基礎科學是一個國家生存的基礎，科技只是賺錢的手段，並不能帶動更高端科技的發展。特別像是臺灣地小人稠，資源有限地情況下，沒有足夠地基礎科學，是不會有未來的高端科技。目前臺灣的高端科技只能說是比較高端的OEM，還談不上高端科技。如果還不正視這個問題，將來也許會發生「誤將（生蚵）作（生科）」的笑話。 " (Article of 打工仔 was posted on ETToday)
I believe this is a bad decision for the development of R&D in Taiwan. I don't see the mention of who will take care of the R&D in university and graduate schools, not to mention the science projects in high schools. I shall quote the comment from 打工仔 , who already had his advanced degree and is now working abroad, to show even a graduate student can see how serious damage can be made by this decision. ~~ Big Eagle ~~
"臺灣的科技龍頭國科會如今慘到被瓜分，指揮官還不敢站出來講話，不知道未來臺灣基礎科學的發展將會成爲什麽情況。當然，直屬總統府管轄，資源豐沛，兵強馬壯的中研院不必擔心未來科研經費以及科研方向受到影響。不知道是不是這個原因使得中研院對於國科會被裁並的可能性不聞不問，但是，沒有強有力的基礎科學做支撐，未來中研院在人才人力的獲得上，難免不受到波及。 基礎科學是一個國家生存的基礎，科技只是賺錢的手段，並不能帶動更高端科技的發展。特別像是臺灣地小人稠，資源有限地情況下，沒有足夠地基礎科學，是不會有未來的高端科技。目前臺灣的高端科技只能說是比較高端的OEM，還談不上高端科技。如果還不正視這個問題，將來也許會發生「誤將（生蚵）作（生科）」的笑話。 " (Article of 打工仔 was posted on ETToday)
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Avoiding Sham Democracy
After posting two articles on democracy, Prof. Hwan Lin called my attention to another article on the nature of democracy. I read it and I really appreciate Prof. Lin's timely introduction to such an illuminating discussion by Mr. Howell. ~~ BIg Eagle ~~ Here is "避開偽裝的民主":
Avoiding sham democracy
By DAVID HOWELL
LONDON -- There is all the difference in the world between democracy and constitutional democracy.
Democracy alone, in the sense of votes, elections, ballot boxes and political parties, is an unanchored force. It can lead to stable societies, but it can just as easily lead in a quite different direction, pushing the ship of state onto the rocks of one-party rule, the cult of personality and all the paraphernalia of tyranny. In the 20th century, this occurred again and again, most notably in the open and "democratic" election of Adolf Hitler in Germany, with hideous consequences.
The point is worth making again today when there is so much talk of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Elections alone may sound democratic, but what if they simply lead to extreme Islamic majorities that then suppress all opposition, as is all too likely in some of them, such as Iraq, and has long since occurred in places like Iran?
All the speeches about democracy then simply end up by creating more autocracies and dictatorships.
This is why the "anchor" of a proper constitution is such a vital component of the democratic process. It holds society in place. In the words of the Oxford English Dictionary it is "the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation or state is governed."
But here's the snag. Constitutions are not to be had ready-made and off the shelf, to be rolled out and placed alongside elected governments as "proof" that a country is now "democratic."
Constitutions are the most delicate and complex constructions, requiring that they be patiently built up, layer upon layer, like the finest lacquer or the most exquisite enamel. History is the store of common experience from which constitution-makers draw. Every nation has a different past and therefore different needs to provide it with an enduring and workable constitutional framework.
This is why constitutional reformers everywhere need to proceed with the greatest caution and respect for what has gone before. The eager reformer who sweeps in and wants to tear great holes in the constitutional fabric does so at his or her peril. Once the constitutional anchor is damaged, what is left may look like democracy but could drift away into either anarchy or worse.
Besides, constitutions are not just about government in the formal or official sense, and their promotion and improvement should never be left to politicians alone.
A working constitution must embrace all the centers of power in society -- not just the body politic but the judiciary, the press, the labor organizations, corporate business, professional bodies and many others. All these must be bound by constitutional restraints and must by their own behavior act as the pillars that a sound constitution always needs.
This applies just as much to those who are trying to develop quite a youngish constitution, such as in Japan at this moment (although from an old growth), as to those in Britain who are seeking to alter a very old constitution that has come down to the present generation through hundreds of years of development -- from precedent to precedent, always adapting but always resting on a solid foundation of beliefs and customs.
Modern Japan, born again in 1945 out of the ashes of disaster, and determined, to its credit, never again to wage aggressive war, now has to decide afresh how to defend itself in the new conditions of global terrorism.
In Britain, the same challenges of global terrorism are placing stresses on the ancient liberties and rights that make up the country's unwritten but deeply entrenched constitutional system and settlement. In the name of national security, the British government is currently trying to bring in laws that would involve detention of citizens without trial or charges -- in effect overturning one of the most treasured of English liberties enshrined in the 13th-century Magna Carta -- that no free man shall be deprived of his freedom and held in prison, without clear charges and due trial -- the so-called habeas corpus principle. << Note: Big Eagle likes that best!!>>
To question something so fundamental to the law and the constitution is, for any government, like putting its hand on a high-voltage cable. But for the present British government, this comes at a time when it has already acquired the reputation of a constitutional meddler. Laws to change ancient parliamentary procedures, laws to curb the powers of the Upper House (House of Lords), laws to reform the judiciary and set up a new supreme court, laws to curb free speech where it is deemed to promote religious hatred -- all are in the pipeline.
And coming up on the horizon is a massive new law to bolt on to the British Constitution, a new and superior legal order and a new pattern of rights in the form of the Constitution for the whole European Union.
Unsurprisingly, all these proposals for altering the British Constitution have met with enormous resistance and run into endless obstacles. This should not be a matter for regret. All constitutions need amendment through the ages and they must be flexible enough to bear this. But such changes must have the approval of the widest possible section of the community and be carried through with the greatest possible respect for society's customs, habits and sensitivities.
Attempts to take hurried shortcuts, or to push through changes on a partisan basis by sheer weight of elected majority, may sound democratic, but they are not. True democracy is not just a simple matter of collecting the most votes. Without being rooted in sound and universally accepted constitutional principles it is meaningless, at best a sham, at worst another destroyer of liberties.
This is the lesson that aspiring democrats in the Middle East will have to learn. But it is also a lesson of which the present generation of political leaders in the more mature democracies, such as Britain and the United States, need constantly reminding. At the moment it seems in danger of slipping their minds. <<Note by Big Eagle: People on Taiwan, please pay attention to this.>>
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.
The Japan Times: March 10, 2005
Avoiding sham democracy
By DAVID HOWELL
LONDON -- There is all the difference in the world between democracy and constitutional democracy.
Democracy alone, in the sense of votes, elections, ballot boxes and political parties, is an unanchored force. It can lead to stable societies, but it can just as easily lead in a quite different direction, pushing the ship of state onto the rocks of one-party rule, the cult of personality and all the paraphernalia of tyranny. In the 20th century, this occurred again and again, most notably in the open and "democratic" election of Adolf Hitler in Germany, with hideous consequences.
The point is worth making again today when there is so much talk of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Elections alone may sound democratic, but what if they simply lead to extreme Islamic majorities that then suppress all opposition, as is all too likely in some of them, such as Iraq, and has long since occurred in places like Iran?
All the speeches about democracy then simply end up by creating more autocracies and dictatorships.
This is why the "anchor" of a proper constitution is such a vital component of the democratic process. It holds society in place. In the words of the Oxford English Dictionary it is "the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation or state is governed."
But here's the snag. Constitutions are not to be had ready-made and off the shelf, to be rolled out and placed alongside elected governments as "proof" that a country is now "democratic."
Constitutions are the most delicate and complex constructions, requiring that they be patiently built up, layer upon layer, like the finest lacquer or the most exquisite enamel. History is the store of common experience from which constitution-makers draw. Every nation has a different past and therefore different needs to provide it with an enduring and workable constitutional framework.
This is why constitutional reformers everywhere need to proceed with the greatest caution and respect for what has gone before. The eager reformer who sweeps in and wants to tear great holes in the constitutional fabric does so at his or her peril. Once the constitutional anchor is damaged, what is left may look like democracy but could drift away into either anarchy or worse.
Besides, constitutions are not just about government in the formal or official sense, and their promotion and improvement should never be left to politicians alone.
A working constitution must embrace all the centers of power in society -- not just the body politic but the judiciary, the press, the labor organizations, corporate business, professional bodies and many others. All these must be bound by constitutional restraints and must by their own behavior act as the pillars that a sound constitution always needs.
This applies just as much to those who are trying to develop quite a youngish constitution, such as in Japan at this moment (although from an old growth), as to those in Britain who are seeking to alter a very old constitution that has come down to the present generation through hundreds of years of development -- from precedent to precedent, always adapting but always resting on a solid foundation of beliefs and customs.
Modern Japan, born again in 1945 out of the ashes of disaster, and determined, to its credit, never again to wage aggressive war, now has to decide afresh how to defend itself in the new conditions of global terrorism.
In Britain, the same challenges of global terrorism are placing stresses on the ancient liberties and rights that make up the country's unwritten but deeply entrenched constitutional system and settlement. In the name of national security, the British government is currently trying to bring in laws that would involve detention of citizens without trial or charges -- in effect overturning one of the most treasured of English liberties enshrined in the 13th-century Magna Carta -- that no free man shall be deprived of his freedom and held in prison, without clear charges and due trial -- the so-called habeas corpus principle. << Note: Big Eagle likes that best!!>>
To question something so fundamental to the law and the constitution is, for any government, like putting its hand on a high-voltage cable. But for the present British government, this comes at a time when it has already acquired the reputation of a constitutional meddler. Laws to change ancient parliamentary procedures, laws to curb the powers of the Upper House (House of Lords), laws to reform the judiciary and set up a new supreme court, laws to curb free speech where it is deemed to promote religious hatred -- all are in the pipeline.
And coming up on the horizon is a massive new law to bolt on to the British Constitution, a new and superior legal order and a new pattern of rights in the form of the Constitution for the whole European Union.
Unsurprisingly, all these proposals for altering the British Constitution have met with enormous resistance and run into endless obstacles. This should not be a matter for regret. All constitutions need amendment through the ages and they must be flexible enough to bear this. But such changes must have the approval of the widest possible section of the community and be carried through with the greatest possible respect for society's customs, habits and sensitivities.
Attempts to take hurried shortcuts, or to push through changes on a partisan basis by sheer weight of elected majority, may sound democratic, but they are not. True democracy is not just a simple matter of collecting the most votes. Without being rooted in sound and universally accepted constitutional principles it is meaningless, at best a sham, at worst another destroyer of liberties.
This is the lesson that aspiring democrats in the Middle East will have to learn. But it is also a lesson of which the present generation of political leaders in the more mature democracies, such as Britain and the United States, need constantly reminding. At the moment it seems in danger of slipping their minds. <<Note by Big Eagle: People on Taiwan, please pay attention to this.>>
David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.
The Japan Times: March 10, 2005
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Democracy Updates -2
Article 2. Published on 2005/3/05. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~
公民新聞學－從扁宋會談媒體新角色
林火旺
扁宋會以政黨和解為名，卻引發藍綠陣營激進派的強烈反彈，尤其獨派大老對陳總統的批判，彷彿深仇大恨。柯林頓總統接受東森新聞獨家專訪時表示，他和老布希總統雖然意見不同，個人卻很肯定他，從來沒有質疑他對國家的愛，兩相對照，國人對待政敵的態度，似乎停留在封建時代。
19世紀英國哲學家彌勒(John Stuart Mill)堅持主張言論和表達的自由，理由是：人都可能犯錯，尤其在自己最確定的事情上，最需要提醒自己是會犯錯的。彌勒認為，在一個真正自由的社會，不同聲音或主張是常態，只有採取強迫或武力，才可能統一思想。多元也是自由社會特有的資產，因為敵對的主張可以提醒和挑戰我們自己之主張的合理性，用暴力壓制他人的質疑，即使是真理，久而久之也會變成死教條。柯林頓在東森的訪談中說：「我們的政治對手，就是我們的朋友，他們顯露出我們的缺點，也顯示出我們的錯誤」，就是這個道理。
如果多元是自由社會的特色，則和解、容忍、妥協才是多元社會不同主張者和平共存的前提。因此不論扁宋各自的盤算是什麼，從對立走向和解、從劍拔弩張變成理性對談都是值得肯定的。
扁宋會引發這麼強烈的反彈，原因在於國人習慣於一元的思考模式，認定自己的主張是惟一的真理，為了真理而羞辱他人、排除異己似乎是尊貴的行為。然而人不是上帝，體認到自己可能犯錯、允許別人反對的空間，才是民主公民應有的風範。如果多元是自由社會的常態和資產，如何使目前存在我們社會的多元對立轉變成多元包容？媒體其實在這方面可以扮演關鍵性的角色。
根據經驗研究顯示，人們在同質性的團體中進行討論會產生團體極化(group polarization)的現象，也就是說一個團體成員在經過討論之後，所形成的觀點往往比討論前更為極端，因為人類具有非常顯著的順從傾向，大部分人（包括許多反叛者）都強烈受到他人想法和行為的影響。因此在沒有受到異議阻止下，基於順從和避免社會壓力的心理特性，一個立場溫和的女性主義同情者，參與女性團體內部討論時，其立場會轉為強硬；一個政黨傾向本來中立的人，參與偏民進黨團體的討論，立場也會趨於「綠化」。因此學者認為，避免極化的最佳方式是：確保公民在異質的情境中進行討論，讓不同的聲音和主張都能在討論中呈現。
面對台灣社會政治極化現象，媒體如果要發揮正面的貢獻，也許需要進行媒體轉型。華盛頓郵報專欄作家布洛德(David Broder)和新聞學者羅森(Jay Rosen)，在1990年代倡導公民或公共新聞學(civic or public journalism)，基本想法是：媒體在政治上所扮演的角色不應該像過去一樣，只站在政治社群的背後報導其病態，而應該變成積極份子，刺激公民參與，導引公民投入公共辯論，使媒體的報導能代表真正人民的聲音。也就是說媒體作為一種工具，應該用來改變和改善政治辯論。所以鼓勵理性討論和傾聽他人聲音，以培養深思熟慮的閱聽人，應該是媒體在多元社會的職責，因此參加談話性節目的來賓如果只會硬拗，媒體應該將他列為拒絕往來戶。
公民新聞學也強調媒體應該改變以往冷眼旁觀、甚至製造對立衝突、唯恐天下不亂的啫血性格，應主動挖掘一般人民關心的問題，透過這些議題質問政治人物的作為，而不是任由政治人物創造議題；也可以透過公民會議促成公民與公民之間、公民和政治人物之間認真對話、理性溝通。誠如柯林頓總統所言，社會的通病是聽不到別人的聲音，扁宋會後媒體報導的焦點不應該擺在獨派大老的反彈，因為堅持自己意識型態優先的人畢竟是少數，而應該深入探討「和解」在多元社會的意義；促成對立雙方平和、耐心聽取彼此的想法；甚至設定如何務實促進兩岸和平的公共議題，引發一般公民廣泛討論，讓大多數人的心聲佔據媒體版面，體現人民當家作主的民主真諦。
過去的媒體以政治人物或名人為核心，所以淪為這些人做秀的工具，公民新聞學所追求的新媒體則是以人民為核心，關心人民的利益和幸福，所以是和人民在一起、站在人民這一邊，是人民的媒體。如果能朝這個方向發展，媒體一定可以從此擺脫「社會亂源」的污名。
公民新聞學－從扁宋會談媒體新角色
林火旺
扁宋會以政黨和解為名，卻引發藍綠陣營激進派的強烈反彈，尤其獨派大老對陳總統的批判，彷彿深仇大恨。柯林頓總統接受東森新聞獨家專訪時表示，他和老布希總統雖然意見不同，個人卻很肯定他，從來沒有質疑他對國家的愛，兩相對照，國人對待政敵的態度，似乎停留在封建時代。
19世紀英國哲學家彌勒(John Stuart Mill)堅持主張言論和表達的自由，理由是：人都可能犯錯，尤其在自己最確定的事情上，最需要提醒自己是會犯錯的。彌勒認為，在一個真正自由的社會，不同聲音或主張是常態，只有採取強迫或武力，才可能統一思想。多元也是自由社會特有的資產，因為敵對的主張可以提醒和挑戰我們自己之主張的合理性，用暴力壓制他人的質疑，即使是真理，久而久之也會變成死教條。柯林頓在東森的訪談中說：「我們的政治對手，就是我們的朋友，他們顯露出我們的缺點，也顯示出我們的錯誤」，就是這個道理。
如果多元是自由社會的特色，則和解、容忍、妥協才是多元社會不同主張者和平共存的前提。因此不論扁宋各自的盤算是什麼，從對立走向和解、從劍拔弩張變成理性對談都是值得肯定的。
扁宋會引發這麼強烈的反彈，原因在於國人習慣於一元的思考模式，認定自己的主張是惟一的真理，為了真理而羞辱他人、排除異己似乎是尊貴的行為。然而人不是上帝，體認到自己可能犯錯、允許別人反對的空間，才是民主公民應有的風範。如果多元是自由社會的常態和資產，如何使目前存在我們社會的多元對立轉變成多元包容？媒體其實在這方面可以扮演關鍵性的角色。
根據經驗研究顯示，人們在同質性的團體中進行討論會產生團體極化(group polarization)的現象，也就是說一個團體成員在經過討論之後，所形成的觀點往往比討論前更為極端，因為人類具有非常顯著的順從傾向，大部分人（包括許多反叛者）都強烈受到他人想法和行為的影響。因此在沒有受到異議阻止下，基於順從和避免社會壓力的心理特性，一個立場溫和的女性主義同情者，參與女性團體內部討論時，其立場會轉為強硬；一個政黨傾向本來中立的人，參與偏民進黨團體的討論，立場也會趨於「綠化」。因此學者認為，避免極化的最佳方式是：確保公民在異質的情境中進行討論，讓不同的聲音和主張都能在討論中呈現。
面對台灣社會政治極化現象，媒體如果要發揮正面的貢獻，也許需要進行媒體轉型。華盛頓郵報專欄作家布洛德(David Broder)和新聞學者羅森(Jay Rosen)，在1990年代倡導公民或公共新聞學(civic or public journalism)，基本想法是：媒體在政治上所扮演的角色不應該像過去一樣，只站在政治社群的背後報導其病態，而應該變成積極份子，刺激公民參與，導引公民投入公共辯論，使媒體的報導能代表真正人民的聲音。也就是說媒體作為一種工具，應該用來改變和改善政治辯論。所以鼓勵理性討論和傾聽他人聲音，以培養深思熟慮的閱聽人，應該是媒體在多元社會的職責，因此參加談話性節目的來賓如果只會硬拗，媒體應該將他列為拒絕往來戶。
公民新聞學也強調媒體應該改變以往冷眼旁觀、甚至製造對立衝突、唯恐天下不亂的啫血性格，應主動挖掘一般人民關心的問題，透過這些議題質問政治人物的作為，而不是任由政治人物創造議題；也可以透過公民會議促成公民與公民之間、公民和政治人物之間認真對話、理性溝通。誠如柯林頓總統所言，社會的通病是聽不到別人的聲音，扁宋會後媒體報導的焦點不應該擺在獨派大老的反彈，因為堅持自己意識型態優先的人畢竟是少數，而應該深入探討「和解」在多元社會的意義；促成對立雙方平和、耐心聽取彼此的想法；甚至設定如何務實促進兩岸和平的公共議題，引發一般公民廣泛討論，讓大多數人的心聲佔據媒體版面，體現人民當家作主的民主真諦。
過去的媒體以政治人物或名人為核心，所以淪為這些人做秀的工具，公民新聞學所追求的新媒體則是以人民為核心，關心人民的利益和幸福，所以是和人民在一起、站在人民這一邊，是人民的媒體。如果能朝這個方向發展，媒體一定可以從此擺脫「社會亂源」的污名。
Democracy Updates - 1 of 2
Recently I found many articles that are talking about "the state of democracy" in Taiwan. Among the many, I picked the following two which I think deserve our attention. The authors of these two articles are university professors. Both articles were published on "民眾日報". Here is the first article which was published on 2005/1/31. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~
真假民主
瞿海源
在民眾日報寫這個專欄也有一年八個月了。最近就把這個專欄的文章連同在近一兩年在其他媒體發表的專欄集結成冊，目前已由圓神出版問世。以下改寫這本名為「真假民主」的新書的長序，說明這一兩年撰寫評論的心緒，主要是對民主政治僵局的分析與批判，請讀者指教。
在去年八月間的一篇專欄中，我指出「從調查顯示，確實有一股強大而在日益增強的民主逆流，阻礙著台灣民主政治的繼續發展」。經過進一步的分析，又發現民眾支持民主的不夠多，反對民主的還不少，而猶疑矛盾者也相當多。
「各個政黨在政治競逐中，大都欠缺推動民主化的企圖和動力。國親兩黨仍然不改威權政黨的特性，黨內幾無民主可言。同時，依舊企圖利用反民主的勢力奪回政權，支持者中有六成都肯定解嚴前的威權政治就是很清楚明白的證據。民進黨在中央執政後，尤其是在總統兼黨主席之後，推動民主化的力量似乎也小了許多，民進黨的民主面貌也變得模糊不清。令人憂心的是，我們正面對著一股阻礙民主政治發展的逆流」。
在二○○四年總統大選當天中時刊出拙著「冷靜理性地來完成大選」，這是時報早先約好的每約稿，文中呼籲候選人、政黨領導階層以及選務人員及民眾冷靜理性地完成總統大選，這些忠告的話，最後等於是白說了。在陳水扁當選連任總統後，澄社決定全面檢討民進黨四年執政的成績，我個人覺得民進黨以「相信台灣、堅持改革」為總統大選主軸，但是民進黨政府在過去四年改革幾乎繳了白卷，五月三十日我在民眾日報就寫了「堅持改革不應該只是口號--民進黨執政四年改革無成的檢討」，這一篇專欄後來就成為澄社在七月間發表的兩萬多字聲明的前言部分。
台灣民主發展至今，大體上確實遭遇到一些困難，甚至是阻難。一方面，國民黨系一直未能因應民主化潮流有效地蛻化為民主政黨，而泛藍上下基本上並沒有真正的民主精神和素養。相對的，在另一方面，泛綠兩黨雖有比較民主的形式，但在實質民主內涵上還是很不夠。尤其是在本土化優先的前提下，不但實際施政效能還未能有效提升，對於重大改革也多缺乏積極推動的動力。
自從經由選舉而失去政權以來，國親新三黨在民主化進程上，似乎是不進反退，更挾其在國會席次的優勢，全力阻擋國家民主化的進行。許多國民黨執政末期好不容易規劃的重大制度改革方案，如司法改革的幾個相關法案等，卻都遭到國民黨的杯葛而無法通過。連戰甚至還說假如國民黨還在執政，國民年金法案早就實施了。擺明就是我執政就通過施行，民進黨或阿扁執政，就是同一個一模一樣的法案，國民黨贏偏偏不讓通過。
個人連續參與監督大法官提名聯盟、司改三法推動聯盟和替代死刑推動聯盟，還擔任後面兩個聯盟的召集人，曾帶領聯盟成員代表去向政府高層及政黨領袖陳情和遊說，深深感到在野的國親就是一味反對到底，甚至連戰主席親口在最後電視上和接見聯盟代表時所答應或承諾的，都沒有實現。民進黨領導階層，特別是陳水扁總統，對民間提出的要求，都表示尊重和肯定，但又常常指稱在野黨杯葛而無法推展。無論怎麼說，結果就是改革無成。至少，讓我覺得連戰的承諾往往是飄飄渺渺，幾乎沒有成真的可能，而民進黨政府推動改革也多有氣無力。
於是，這一兩年來，在寫評論時，深深覺得我們正遭逢民主發展的逆流。在這本評論集文章選輯成形時，就跟圓神的編輯說就以「民主的逆流」做為書名。但是經過與編輯商議，要擬一個更好的書名。覺得目前民主遭逢逆流，其根本在於缺乏真正的民主。許多人，尤其是政治領導人士都沒有真正的民主體認和民主的素養，但口口聲聲都說自己民主，對方不民主，甚至民間也有拿民主聯盟名銜來魚目混珠的，其實多是假民主。在專欄中，往往在批判假民主，提倡真民主。於是最後就決定以「真假民主」做為這本評論集的書名。
真假民主
瞿海源
在民眾日報寫這個專欄也有一年八個月了。最近就把這個專欄的文章連同在近一兩年在其他媒體發表的專欄集結成冊，目前已由圓神出版問世。以下改寫這本名為「真假民主」的新書的長序，說明這一兩年撰寫評論的心緒，主要是對民主政治僵局的分析與批判，請讀者指教。
在去年八月間的一篇專欄中，我指出「從調查顯示，確實有一股強大而在日益增強的民主逆流，阻礙著台灣民主政治的繼續發展」。經過進一步的分析，又發現民眾支持民主的不夠多，反對民主的還不少，而猶疑矛盾者也相當多。
「各個政黨在政治競逐中，大都欠缺推動民主化的企圖和動力。國親兩黨仍然不改威權政黨的特性，黨內幾無民主可言。同時，依舊企圖利用反民主的勢力奪回政權，支持者中有六成都肯定解嚴前的威權政治就是很清楚明白的證據。民進黨在中央執政後，尤其是在總統兼黨主席之後，推動民主化的力量似乎也小了許多，民進黨的民主面貌也變得模糊不清。令人憂心的是，我們正面對著一股阻礙民主政治發展的逆流」。
在二○○四年總統大選當天中時刊出拙著「冷靜理性地來完成大選」，這是時報早先約好的每約稿，文中呼籲候選人、政黨領導階層以及選務人員及民眾冷靜理性地完成總統大選，這些忠告的話，最後等於是白說了。在陳水扁當選連任總統後，澄社決定全面檢討民進黨四年執政的成績，我個人覺得民進黨以「相信台灣、堅持改革」為總統大選主軸，但是民進黨政府在過去四年改革幾乎繳了白卷，五月三十日我在民眾日報就寫了「堅持改革不應該只是口號--民進黨執政四年改革無成的檢討」，這一篇專欄後來就成為澄社在七月間發表的兩萬多字聲明的前言部分。
台灣民主發展至今，大體上確實遭遇到一些困難，甚至是阻難。一方面，國民黨系一直未能因應民主化潮流有效地蛻化為民主政黨，而泛藍上下基本上並沒有真正的民主精神和素養。相對的，在另一方面，泛綠兩黨雖有比較民主的形式，但在實質民主內涵上還是很不夠。尤其是在本土化優先的前提下，不但實際施政效能還未能有效提升，對於重大改革也多缺乏積極推動的動力。
自從經由選舉而失去政權以來，國親新三黨在民主化進程上，似乎是不進反退，更挾其在國會席次的優勢，全力阻擋國家民主化的進行。許多國民黨執政末期好不容易規劃的重大制度改革方案，如司法改革的幾個相關法案等，卻都遭到國民黨的杯葛而無法通過。連戰甚至還說假如國民黨還在執政，國民年金法案早就實施了。擺明就是我執政就通過施行，民進黨或阿扁執政，就是同一個一模一樣的法案，國民黨贏偏偏不讓通過。
個人連續參與監督大法官提名聯盟、司改三法推動聯盟和替代死刑推動聯盟，還擔任後面兩個聯盟的召集人，曾帶領聯盟成員代表去向政府高層及政黨領袖陳情和遊說，深深感到在野的國親就是一味反對到底，甚至連戰主席親口在最後電視上和接見聯盟代表時所答應或承諾的，都沒有實現。民進黨領導階層，特別是陳水扁總統，對民間提出的要求，都表示尊重和肯定，但又常常指稱在野黨杯葛而無法推展。無論怎麼說，結果就是改革無成。至少，讓我覺得連戰的承諾往往是飄飄渺渺，幾乎沒有成真的可能，而民進黨政府推動改革也多有氣無力。
於是，這一兩年來，在寫評論時，深深覺得我們正遭逢民主發展的逆流。在這本評論集文章選輯成形時，就跟圓神的編輯說就以「民主的逆流」做為書名。但是經過與編輯商議，要擬一個更好的書名。覺得目前民主遭逢逆流，其根本在於缺乏真正的民主。許多人，尤其是政治領導人士都沒有真正的民主體認和民主的素養，但口口聲聲都說自己民主，對方不民主，甚至民間也有拿民主聯盟名銜來魚目混珠的，其實多是假民主。在專欄中，往往在批判假民主，提倡真民主。於是最後就決定以「真假民主」做為這本評論集的書名。
Friday, March 04, 2005
Taiwan Presbyterian Church 2/21/05 Declaration
台灣基督長老教會公義與和平宣言
為關心台灣目前處境及將來的發展，本教會秉持「根植於本地，認同所有的住民，通過愛與受苦，而成為盼望的記號。」之信仰告白，特發表此宣言。
一‧台灣主權獨立是政黨合作應堅持的基礎。追求和平是人類共同的目標，但和平應建立在公義的基礎之上；政黨間之協商及合作，必須以台灣國家主權獨立為前提。我們呼籲所有的政黨，認同疼惜台灣這塊我們安身立命的土地。台灣就是我們的鄉土、我們的國家。所有的政黨應忠於台灣，為全民的尊嚴與福祉盡心盡力。國家主權是促進經濟發展及民生需要的保護傘，失去主權，一切建設必隨之崩解。所以政府必須堅持維護台灣國家主權獨立，正名、制憲、加入聯合國、以及照顧弱勢者、實現社會正義的政治理想及目標。
二‧追求公義和平乃是國際社會共同的責任。台灣長期被孤立於國際社會之外，是違背普世公義和平的原則。台灣國與中國是兩個互不隸屬的主權獨立國家。世界各國應支持台灣國加入國際組織、參與國際事務，讓台灣能貢獻於世界的公義和平及人類的安全與幸福。美國與其他崇尚民主自由的國家，在國際事務上需要中國的合作時，我們呼籲各國政府與人民，必須同時尊重及維護台灣國家的獨立主權。
三‧確立台灣與中國的新關係。台灣與中國應秉持平等互惠、和平共存的原則，互相承認與尊重。台灣非中國領土。台灣的民主自由正遭受中國的文攻武嚇，中國以超過七百枚且不斷增加的飛彈瞄準台灣，並將制定「反分裂國家法」，破壞兩國關係，嚴重危害亞太地區的和平與安全。為此，我國應制定「台灣國與中國關係法」，以確立兩國新關係，保障台灣的主權與人民的安全，並促進亞太地區的和諧與發展。我們呼籲台灣國人同胞堅定信心、勇往直前，因為聖經說：「我豈沒有吩咐你嗎？你當剛強壯膽！不要懼怕，也不要驚惶；因為你無論往哪裏去，耶和華─你的上帝必與你同在。」~約書亞記1章9節
「慈愛和誠實彼此相遇；公義和平安彼此相親。誠實從地而生；公義從天而現。」 ~聖經詩篇85篇10-11節
台灣基督長老教會總會
總會議長 陳道雄
總幹 事 羅榮光
主後 2005年 2月21日
為關心台灣目前處境及將來的發展，本教會秉持「根植於本地，認同所有的住民，通過愛與受苦，而成為盼望的記號。」之信仰告白，特發表此宣言。
一‧台灣主權獨立是政黨合作應堅持的基礎。追求和平是人類共同的目標，但和平應建立在公義的基礎之上；政黨間之協商及合作，必須以台灣國家主權獨立為前提。我們呼籲所有的政黨，認同疼惜台灣這塊我們安身立命的土地。台灣就是我們的鄉土、我們的國家。所有的政黨應忠於台灣，為全民的尊嚴與福祉盡心盡力。國家主權是促進經濟發展及民生需要的保護傘，失去主權，一切建設必隨之崩解。所以政府必須堅持維護台灣國家主權獨立，正名、制憲、加入聯合國、以及照顧弱勢者、實現社會正義的政治理想及目標。
二‧追求公義和平乃是國際社會共同的責任。台灣長期被孤立於國際社會之外，是違背普世公義和平的原則。台灣國與中國是兩個互不隸屬的主權獨立國家。世界各國應支持台灣國加入國際組織、參與國際事務，讓台灣能貢獻於世界的公義和平及人類的安全與幸福。美國與其他崇尚民主自由的國家，在國際事務上需要中國的合作時，我們呼籲各國政府與人民，必須同時尊重及維護台灣國家的獨立主權。
三‧確立台灣與中國的新關係。台灣與中國應秉持平等互惠、和平共存的原則，互相承認與尊重。台灣非中國領土。台灣的民主自由正遭受中國的文攻武嚇，中國以超過七百枚且不斷增加的飛彈瞄準台灣，並將制定「反分裂國家法」，破壞兩國關係，嚴重危害亞太地區的和平與安全。為此，我國應制定「台灣國與中國關係法」，以確立兩國新關係，保障台灣的主權與人民的安全，並促進亞太地區的和諧與發展。我們呼籲台灣國人同胞堅定信心、勇往直前，因為聖經說：「我豈沒有吩咐你嗎？你當剛強壯膽！不要懼怕，也不要驚惶；因為你無論往哪裏去，耶和華─你的上帝必與你同在。」~約書亞記1章9節
「慈愛和誠實彼此相遇；公義和平安彼此相親。誠實從地而生；公義從天而現。」 ~聖經詩篇85篇10-11節
台灣基督長老教會總會
總會議長 陳道雄
總幹 事 羅榮光
主後 2005年 2月21日
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
