It was reported that Taiwan government is planning to add individual citizen's fingerprint on the new National ID card. People concern with human rights would immediate argue the validity and necessity of this policy because a country is not a free country when its citizens are regarded as criminals without proving any crime has been committed.
In the recent history, we member that during Hitler was in power, he ordered to keep fingerprints of all prisoners and Jews. More recently, it was President G.W. Bush ordered to take every foreigner who visits US should have his/her fingerprint taken in 2001. Bush did that as a measure to identify foreign “terrorists”.
Then there was a call for fingerprinting all citizens in EU. That was debated vigorously and was not implemented. During the hearing in Europe, there was an exchange of Q&A:
[Question: Are you personally happy with compulsory fingerprints for all EU citizens via a biometric passport?
Josep Borrell: As you are no doubt aware, this is a requirement imposed by the US authorities. The Council has fallen into line with them, whereas our Parliamentary Committee would have preferred a different approach.]
There were not many oppositions to this measure in Taiwan from both human rights organizations and also newspapers until about 10 days ago, when Ms. Annette Lu, Vice President of ROC, was quoted to say the fingerprinting is not right and is unconstitutional. More attention were paid to this issue by newspapers after Ms Lu spoke at the “International Symposium on Human Rights” held on May 18, 2005. In her welcome speech she commented on this subject by saying:
“Recently, when the government began to consider the necessity of incorporating universal fingerprinting into the new ID system, many in society were worried that such a policy would infringe upon fundamental human rights. The Advisory Council conducted a series of hearings immediately and reported to the president. In that report we reminded the government of the potential problems of incorporating fingerprinting into the new national ID system. Although Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, the Advisory Council reached the conclusion that we should encourage the government to take steps to enter into the regime of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court.”
More discussion on this subject had been made by Bruce Schneier on “Newsday”, January 14, 2004:
According to the Bush administration, the measures are designed to combat terrorism. As a security expert, it's hard for me to see how. The 9/11 terrorists would not have been deterred by this system; many of them entered the country legally on valid passports and visas. We have a 5,500-mile long border with Canada and another 2,000-mile long border with Mexico currently uncovered by the program. An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 people enter the country illegally each year from Mexico. Two million to 3 million people enter the country legally each year and overstay their visas. Capturing the biometric information of everyone entering the country doesn't make us safer.
And even if we could completely seal our borders, fingerprinting everyone still wouldn't keep terrorists out. It's not like we can identify terrorists in advance. The border guards can't say "this fingerprint is safe; it's not in our database" because there is no fingerprint database for suspected terrorists.
Even more dangerous is the precedent this program sets. Today the program affects only foreign visitors with visas. The next logical step is to fingerprint all visitors to the United States and then everybody, including U.S. citizens.
Retaliation is another worry. Brazil is now fingerprinting Americans who visit that country, and other countries are expected to follow suit. All over the world, totalitarian governments will use our fingerprinting regime to justify fingerprinting Americans who enter their countries. This means that your prints are going to end up on file with every tin-pot dictator from Sierra Leone to Uzbekistan. And Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge has already pledged to share security information with other countries.
Security is a trade-off. When deciding whether to implement a security measure, we must balance the costs against the benefits. Large-scale fingerprinting is something that doesn't add much to our security against terrorism and costs an enormous amount of money that could be better spent elsewhere. Allocating the funds on compiling, sharing and enforcing the terrorist watch list would be a far better security investment. As a security consumer, I'm getting swindled.
America's security comes from our freedoms. For more than two centuries, we have maintained a delicate balance between freedom and the opportunity for crime. We deliberately put laws in place that hamper police investigations because we know we are more secure because of them. We know that laws regulating wiretapping, search and seizure, and interrogation make us all safer, even if they make it harder to convict criminals.
The U.S. system of government has a basic unwritten rule: The government should be granted only limited power, and for limited purposes, because of the certainty that government power will be abused. We've already seen the Patriot Act powers granted to the government to combat terrorism directed against common crimes. Allowing the government to create the infrastructure to collect biometrics information on everyone it can is not a power we should grant the government lightly. It's something we would have expected in former East Germany, Iraq or the Soviet Union. In all of these countries, greater government control meant less security for citizens, and the results in the United States will be no different. It's bad civic hygiene to build an infrastructure that can be used to facilitate a police state.
.........................
The government on Taiwan did not use the anti-Terrorist as the reason of requiring fingerprinting all citizens. It said that fingerprinting will reduce the crime. However, if one look closely to the details of the statistics of crimes, you will quickly find out that:
(1) The most frequent crime is stealing/theft. It consists of about 60% of the total crimes. More interesting fact is that about 62% of these cases was committed by the repeated criminals.
(2) Fingerprint is not the only convincing evidence used by the court. Clever criminals and careful criminals will avoid leaving fingerprint at the crime scene. The police could find fingerprints left by other innocent people.
(3) Fingerprinting system's error can cost lots of money, effort and time for legal solution.
(4) Safety statistics does not support the claim that number of crime will reduce by fingerprinting people related with the cases.
So, what is the advantage of that elaborating and costly system? The only advantage is that it provides a convenient tool for police force to arrest people. But more important issue is that fingerprinting citizens is really violate the fundamental human rights of citizens.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Taiwanese American Heritage Week
慶祝美國台灣傳統週之一則感觸
每年五月是美國國訂的亞太美裔月。台灣人公共事務協會(FAPA) 在1998起經多位眾議員的協助，終於在2000年由Clinton總統宣佈五月最後一週訂為『Taiwanese American Heritage Week』，而從此正式成為美國國訂慶節之一。我很榮幸擔任第一屆洛杉磯美國台灣傳統週的總召集人，深受各社團的支持及參與，共同在當年五月二十日在洛杉磯台福基督教會舉辦了第一次的慶祝。
事經五年，這項慶祝活動也逐年擴大，今年的壓軸戲是五月二十二日的園遊會(Bazaar)。回想當年籌劃節目時，我詢遍社團及鄉親，希望能展示台灣的傳統服裝，但是最後只好用原住民的舞蹈來代替我原來的節目。我由那一次的經驗，就鼓勵婦女團體及服裝店，共同去提高對台灣傳統服裝的研究發展，甚至於也向台灣文建會建議過。可是五年來還是沒有看到我的建議被注重，更不用說被推動。
每位讀者一定有經驗過下列的直覺：
當您看到…
女人穿高叉長袍 … 越南人
女人穿紗麗... 印度人
穿和服... 日本人
穿韓服... 韓國人
男人穿尼格裙.. 蘇格蘭人
這種傳統文化是由整個社會的日常生活，經過長期時間的粹煉而合成的一種永續的活文化。如果台灣文化沒有一件可以代表台灣的衣服，那不是很遺憾嗎？
每年五月是美國國訂的亞太美裔月。台灣人公共事務協會(FAPA) 在1998起經多位眾議員的協助，終於在2000年由Clinton總統宣佈五月最後一週訂為『Taiwanese American Heritage Week』，而從此正式成為美國國訂慶節之一。我很榮幸擔任第一屆洛杉磯美國台灣傳統週的總召集人，深受各社團的支持及參與，共同在當年五月二十日在洛杉磯台福基督教會舉辦了第一次的慶祝。
事經五年，這項慶祝活動也逐年擴大，今年的壓軸戲是五月二十二日的園遊會(Bazaar)。回想當年籌劃節目時，我詢遍社團及鄉親，希望能展示台灣的傳統服裝，但是最後只好用原住民的舞蹈來代替我原來的節目。我由那一次的經驗，就鼓勵婦女團體及服裝店，共同去提高對台灣傳統服裝的研究發展，甚至於也向台灣文建會建議過。可是五年來還是沒有看到我的建議被注重，更不用說被推動。
每位讀者一定有經驗過下列的直覺：
當您看到…
女人穿高叉長袍 … 越南人
女人穿紗麗... 印度人
穿和服... 日本人
穿韓服... 韓國人
男人穿尼格裙.. 蘇格蘭人
這種傳統文化是由整個社會的日常生活，經過長期時間的粹煉而合成的一種永續的活文化。如果台灣文化沒有一件可以代表台灣的衣服，那不是很遺憾嗎？
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Update on Democracy Ranking
In February I posted the rankings of Taiwan published by Worldaudit.org. In March, they had an update of their rankings of countries in the world. Here are the new result about Taiwan:
Democracy Index: 42 (was 39 in January)
Press Freedom: 38 (no change)
Corruption: 31 (no change).
The organization now added another index called Index of Economic Freedom. I just select a few countries for comparison:
No. 1 Hong Kong
No. 2 Singapore
No. 7 UK
No. 12 USA
No. 27 Taiwan
No. 39 Japan
No. 45 S. Korea
No. 112 China
No. 155 N. Korea
Democracy Index: 42 (was 39 in January)
Press Freedom: 38 (no change)
Corruption: 31 (no change).
The organization now added another index called Index of Economic Freedom. I just select a few countries for comparison:
No. 1 Hong Kong
No. 2 Singapore
No. 7 UK
No. 12 USA
No. 27 Taiwan
No. 39 Japan
No. 45 S. Korea
No. 112 China
No. 155 N. Korea
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Education - The Foundation of Democracy
BigEagle has been calling attention to the urgent need to revamp the education system of Taiwan since 1995. 10 years have past since then and we have only witnessed more chaos in the system and confusion among the teachers and parents, not to mention the frustration of students. One can not help worrying what kind of country Taiwan will be in the near future when people face the confusion of history, complication in teaching languages, and the lack of morals in schools. Recently, the new argument is the call for the abandonment of teaching and the use of classical Chinese (文言文). It is fair to argue that type of language is not widely used in daily life, but one would encounter that in novels, movies, and even in the literatures of Japan and Korea throughout the life time.
I am glad to come across a nice piece of article from ETToday.com and I like to share with my friends.
作者: 佛劍分說，台南縣善化鎮人
驪歌將響，離情依依，新舊代謝，亦在此際，超額之難，困頓全臺，以此而視，少子之狀，使人恐之，政府腐腦，未能因應，唯重口號，意識操弄，此其強項，對此內憂，無心無能。
教育編制，於前所定，前法於今，未能適用，何不修之？高中編制，二點二五，國中編制，每班二人，國小編制，一點五人，以國小論，一再減班，實質編制，一點二人，甚又不足，加以縣府，
人員管控，人手之缺，更勝從前，以三者看，差別待遇，公平何在？
今子肖虎，習俗憚之，避而生子，應趁此時，落實小班，編制重整，然今之困，為財政矣，縣府困窘，人事經費，難以支付，尤臺南縣，核退管制，全臺之末，推薪難支，教育之長，汝可知乎？
終日之論，去中國化，意識型態，刪廢文言，強調獨立，可有盡責？
今年未動，明年人數，龍子龍女，恐師不足，屆時反覆，突顯無能，選舉又至，以票決定，既是無能，無格任之。
少子之因，非今而出，內政之計，已多年耳，然何以此？政治不安，社會不平，特權林立，政黨內耗，肉食者鄙，未懂民苦，經濟蕭條，貧富懸殊，痛苦加劇，物價飆飛，唯薪獨降，生活艱難，學費所貲，妖孽當道，民不聊生，只聞獨音，未視澤被，在此之境，高官之子，國外留學，貧困之家，何敢生育？
貪官污吏，享用民膏，苦虻努耕，三餐未逮，試問汝等？吾焉敢育？
再論學質，每代愈下，又見報導，欲刪古文，曹丕：文章者，經國之大業也。許多文言之品，載歷多少其治事之要，如賈誼之過秦論，言盛秦之亡，起於不仁，揭竿於甿隸，蘇洵之六國論，言敗於賂秦，倘若自強團結，則可抗之，另諷當朝媚金之策，一字一句，其義皆可為寶。
古人智慧，點滴成書，今卻因政治之意識，抹殺文學，與初時白色恐佈之行無異，應以為慎！
眼見時下政策，偏重英文，輕視中文，似乎英文首要，中文低差無所痛養，教育方針出了問題，
以利為前，廢其德業，無怪乎智慧犯罪日多，因不重德業也。
水可載舟，亦可覆舟，人本立意雖佳，過度上綱，反得其反，人本強調自主，然需前提，環境皆善，今之所處，狐林虎險，偷拐搶騙，以班杜拉「社會學習論」，反而染少惡習，成「畫虎不成反類犬」之譏，故袞袞諸公，善民可積德，望此惜之。
古文瀚海泳難盡，孟堅藝志定紛云，
九流十家表派思，支字片言修慧辛。
六經源遠歷不敗，三百三禮立言循，
儒本之道推為首，處事接物為之本。
史錄羅朝興衰因，明君忠臣鑑古今，
爬羅剔抉德為要，昏主佞奸殃萬民。
大集文藻昭明選，唐宋八大皆奇人，
賦駢詩麗詞婉約，左史古文衍此進。
一舉成名天下聞，十年寒窗有誰問，
習識本修八德目，流為禽犢求祿印。
美章紙貴後世欣，政治不應使之貧，
通曉意境敘己言，反芻暢論似水奔。
世知四維國之要，文化教材欲刨根，
是教學子可喪德，莘子之質使墮深？
教者兮上施而效，育者兮使善入心，
矩規厲行成方圓，厚德良行急為甚。
龍頭三寸需嚴謹，重責立目施方針，
教改失敗緒萬端，勿涉細末反失品。
(ETToday.com – 2005/5/08)
I am glad to come across a nice piece of article from ETToday.com and I like to share with my friends.
作者: 佛劍分說，台南縣善化鎮人
驪歌將響，離情依依，新舊代謝，亦在此際，超額之難，困頓全臺，以此而視，少子之狀，使人恐之，政府腐腦，未能因應，唯重口號，意識操弄，此其強項，對此內憂，無心無能。
教育編制，於前所定，前法於今，未能適用，何不修之？高中編制，二點二五，國中編制，每班二人，國小編制，一點五人，以國小論，一再減班，實質編制，一點二人，甚又不足，加以縣府，
人員管控，人手之缺，更勝從前，以三者看，差別待遇，公平何在？
今子肖虎，習俗憚之，避而生子，應趁此時，落實小班，編制重整，然今之困，為財政矣，縣府困窘，人事經費，難以支付，尤臺南縣，核退管制，全臺之末，推薪難支，教育之長，汝可知乎？
終日之論，去中國化，意識型態，刪廢文言，強調獨立，可有盡責？
今年未動，明年人數，龍子龍女，恐師不足，屆時反覆，突顯無能，選舉又至，以票決定，既是無能，無格任之。
少子之因，非今而出，內政之計，已多年耳，然何以此？政治不安，社會不平，特權林立，政黨內耗，肉食者鄙，未懂民苦，經濟蕭條，貧富懸殊，痛苦加劇，物價飆飛，唯薪獨降，生活艱難，學費所貲，妖孽當道，民不聊生，只聞獨音，未視澤被，在此之境，高官之子，國外留學，貧困之家，何敢生育？
貪官污吏，享用民膏，苦虻努耕，三餐未逮，試問汝等？吾焉敢育？
再論學質，每代愈下，又見報導，欲刪古文，曹丕：文章者，經國之大業也。許多文言之品，載歷多少其治事之要，如賈誼之過秦論，言盛秦之亡，起於不仁，揭竿於甿隸，蘇洵之六國論，言敗於賂秦，倘若自強團結，則可抗之，另諷當朝媚金之策，一字一句，其義皆可為寶。
古人智慧，點滴成書，今卻因政治之意識，抹殺文學，與初時白色恐佈之行無異，應以為慎！
眼見時下政策，偏重英文，輕視中文，似乎英文首要，中文低差無所痛養，教育方針出了問題，
以利為前，廢其德業，無怪乎智慧犯罪日多，因不重德業也。
水可載舟，亦可覆舟，人本立意雖佳，過度上綱，反得其反，人本強調自主，然需前提，環境皆善，今之所處，狐林虎險，偷拐搶騙，以班杜拉「社會學習論」，反而染少惡習，成「畫虎不成反類犬」之譏，故袞袞諸公，善民可積德，望此惜之。
古文瀚海泳難盡，孟堅藝志定紛云，
九流十家表派思，支字片言修慧辛。
六經源遠歷不敗，三百三禮立言循，
儒本之道推為首，處事接物為之本。
史錄羅朝興衰因，明君忠臣鑑古今，
爬羅剔抉德為要，昏主佞奸殃萬民。
大集文藻昭明選，唐宋八大皆奇人，
賦駢詩麗詞婉約，左史古文衍此進。
一舉成名天下聞，十年寒窗有誰問，
習識本修八德目，流為禽犢求祿印。
美章紙貴後世欣，政治不應使之貧，
通曉意境敘己言，反芻暢論似水奔。
世知四維國之要，文化教材欲刨根，
是教學子可喪德，莘子之質使墮深？
教者兮上施而效，育者兮使善入心，
矩規厲行成方圓，厚德良行急為甚。
龍頭三寸需嚴謹，重責立目施方針，
教改失敗緒萬端，勿涉細末反失品。
(ETToday.com – 2005/5/08)
Friday, May 06, 2005
Liberals vs. Conservatives
Liberalism vs. Conservatism
In my previous post “Varieties of Democracy”, I mentioned one of the important factors for establishing democracy is to have majority of middle class because it acts as a buffer between the upper classes who want political power and the lower classes may want power to lift themselves up. Consequently, in the democratic society, there are two major groups of people who will actively seek for political power to extend their ideologies and their advantages. In followings are summary of what I read from literatrues:
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Liberalism focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is contrast to totalitarianism.
Liberals favor constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals at various times have embraced both constitutional monarchy and republican government. They are generally opposed to any but the milder forms of nationalism, and usually stand in contrast to conservatives by their broader tolerance and in more readily embracing multiculturalism. Furthermore, they generally favor human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press (while holding various positions on whether people have an inherent right to the means of economic subsistence). But liberal parties support restrictions on incitement to violence.
Liberals also typically believe in a free market and free trade, but they differ in the degree of limited government intervention in the economy which they advocate. In general, government responsibility for health, education and alleviating poverty fits into the policies of most liberal parties.
Liberals generally believe in a neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine how individuals can pursue happiness. This self-determination gives way to an open mind in ethical questions. Most liberal parties support the 'pro choice' movement and advocate equal rights for women and for homosexuals. Equality before the law is crucial in liberal policies, and racism is incompatible with liberalism.
There is an ambiguity inherent in the term "conservative" as used today. Classical Conservatism emphasizes the importance of tradition and continuity. An individual may fall anywhere from the right to the center-left on the traditional left-right political spectrum and be a classical conservative. On the other hand, ideological conservatism is specifically on the right side of the spectrum. Thus, to talk meaningfully about conservatism, one must consider both classical conservatism and ideological conservatism.
The classical conservative embraces an attitude that is deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology or doctrine, whether that doctrine is radical libertarianism, socialism, Nazism, or anything else. Classical conservatives see history as being full of disastrous schemes that seemed like good ideas at the time. Human society, in their view, is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.
With the understanding of liberalism and conservatism, now we can discuss issues more on the intellectual level rather than the often displayed expression of “You liberals…!”
In my previous post “Varieties of Democracy”, I mentioned one of the important factors for establishing democracy is to have majority of middle class because it acts as a buffer between the upper classes who want political power and the lower classes may want power to lift themselves up. Consequently, in the democratic society, there are two major groups of people who will actively seek for political power to extend their ideologies and their advantages. In followings are summary of what I read from literatrues:
Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Liberalism focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is contrast to totalitarianism.
Liberals favor constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals at various times have embraced both constitutional monarchy and republican government. They are generally opposed to any but the milder forms of nationalism, and usually stand in contrast to conservatives by their broader tolerance and in more readily embracing multiculturalism. Furthermore, they generally favor human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press (while holding various positions on whether people have an inherent right to the means of economic subsistence). But liberal parties support restrictions on incitement to violence.
Liberals also typically believe in a free market and free trade, but they differ in the degree of limited government intervention in the economy which they advocate. In general, government responsibility for health, education and alleviating poverty fits into the policies of most liberal parties.
Liberals generally believe in a neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine how individuals can pursue happiness. This self-determination gives way to an open mind in ethical questions. Most liberal parties support the 'pro choice' movement and advocate equal rights for women and for homosexuals. Equality before the law is crucial in liberal policies, and racism is incompatible with liberalism.
There is an ambiguity inherent in the term "conservative" as used today. Classical Conservatism emphasizes the importance of tradition and continuity. An individual may fall anywhere from the right to the center-left on the traditional left-right political spectrum and be a classical conservative. On the other hand, ideological conservatism is specifically on the right side of the spectrum. Thus, to talk meaningfully about conservatism, one must consider both classical conservatism and ideological conservatism.
The classical conservative embraces an attitude that is deeply suspicious of any attempt to remake society in the service of any ideology or doctrine, whether that doctrine is radical libertarianism, socialism, Nazism, or anything else. Classical conservatives see history as being full of disastrous schemes that seemed like good ideas at the time. Human society, in their view, is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.
With the understanding of liberalism and conservatism, now we can discuss issues more on the intellectual level rather than the often displayed expression of “You liberals…!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
