Big Eagle has written about democracy on this blog many times, many of those articles were posted in the early days of this blog. Upon reading Mr. Fareed Zakaria’s recent article entitled “ The Limits of Democracy” (Newsweek Magazine, January 29, 2007), I feel I am totally agree with Mr. Zakaria’s many views on this subject and I like to share with the readers on some important thoughts about democracy.
I had argued that it is impossible to import democracy from one country to another country as President George W. Bush mentioned again and again. His administration talks constantly about its “freedom agenda”. However, most people in the world know that 2006 was a bad year for liberty. Regimes across the world are closing down nongovernmental organizations, newspapers, and groups that advocate for human rights. Mr. Zakaria attributes this retreat of freedom and human rights to “global antipathy to the U.S. President.“ Bush’s arrogance has turned people off the idea of democracy”, said Larry Diamond, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy. He also pointed out several countries where elections have been followed by governmental paralysis, corruption, and ethnic warfare. I am sorry to say that Taiwan seems to follow the same track.
Mr. Zakaria correctly pointed out the basic problem confronting the developing world today is not absence of democracy but an absence of governance. This is the cancer that is eating away the lives of people across the globe, putting countries into chaos.
So the question is back to the establishment of democracy. Without education, sound economy, and a competent government that respects human rights and has the knowledge of governance, democracy is fragile and we can also say that the imported election can only results in causing nation’s politics and economy fall apart and the state is dismantled, its social order over turned.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
We will be showing the President the way !
This is a good article to learn the American Democracy..... - Big Eagle -
Democratic Response by Senator Jim Webb
01/23/2007
Good evening. I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons. With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq. On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
Democratic Response by Senator Jim Webb
01/23/2007
Good evening. I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President's message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons. With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq. On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves "as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other." And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
司法不嚴 , 民主垮台
如果官員不以身示範, 尊重法律, 人民如何看得起執政的政黨呢? 台北地方法院在一月十九日第五度開庭審理國務機要費案，合議庭認為，總統府秘書長陳唐山等五位官員無 正當理由卻不出庭作證，因此裁定每人科以三萬元罰金。另外，合議庭也將以最速件函詢陳水扁總統本人，請他函覆合議庭六件機密外交工作，若總統未在二十二日 中午前提出列為國家機密的相關紀錄，將於隔天二十三日開放律師閱卷。
檢辯雙方對六項機密外交工作是否屬於國家機密的爭議，合議庭認為，這六項外交工作內容不屬於國家機 密保護法的國家機密，也沒有所謂國家機密特權的問題，因此，合議庭裁定，二十三日開放給律師閱卷，陳總統若有符合國家機密保護法核定機密的書面或電磁紀 錄，須在二十二日中午十二時前提出。
另外，針對辯護律師團在昨天再度向合議庭提出聲請國務機要費釋憲，並聲請停止審理一案，審判長蔡守訓指出，對於審理此案的違憲爭議，合議庭已做出本案無違憲應續行審理的裁定，辯護律師團在往後庭訊中不得再提，否則將依干擾法庭來依法論處。
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Are Taiwanese Happy Now?
Happiness Index shows Taiwan is No. 63 among the nations. Here is the recent poll in Taiwan:
2006 Ranking of Democracy
WorldAudit announced their recent ranking of democracy and other index on November, 2006.
Here are rankings of selected countries for comparison with Taiwan's scores:
1. Democracy Ranking: Taiwan - 22; Finland - 1; US - 15; Japan: 32; S. Korea - 34
2. Press Freedom: Taiwan - 21; Finland - 1; US - 11; Japan - 21; S. Korea - 41
3. Corruption: Taiwan - 27; FInland - 1; US - 17; Japan - 14; S. Korea - 33
For complete rankings of all countries, see WorldAudit.org/
Here are rankings of selected countries for comparison with Taiwan's scores:
1. Democracy Ranking: Taiwan - 22; Finland - 1; US - 15; Japan: 32; S. Korea - 34
2. Press Freedom: Taiwan - 21; Finland - 1; US - 11; Japan - 21; S. Korea - 41
3. Corruption: Taiwan - 27; FInland - 1; US - 17; Japan - 14; S. Korea - 33
For complete rankings of all countries, see WorldAudit.org/
Monday, January 15, 2007
In Memory of Dr. Marting Luther King, Jr.
On this special day to remember Dr. King, I like to share two famous words which was said by Dr. King:
1. "I have a dream" ------ free from prejudice.
2. "I have been to the top of mountain....and I've seen the promise land."
Fellow Taiwanese, have you dreamed about the harmonious society in Taiwan? Have you dreamed about the promise land?"
Sunday, January 14, 2007
經部決讓出華揚史威靈經營權
經部決讓出華揚史威靈經營權
江睿智/台北報導 (
經濟部耀華玻璃主導投資的華揚史威靈（SSAC）連年虧損，據了解，經濟部已與一家美國投資公司洽談，對方將出資約一．五億美元，而經濟部將讓出經營權，全案預訂在一月底、二月初定案。
政府出資投資華揚史威靈，已達六億美元，但SSAC進入量產階段，卻依然狀況連連，猶如財務黑洞，立院決議，政府不得再增資華揚史威靈。經濟部政務次長施顏祥曾在去年十月間率領專家赴美診斷後，經濟部決定徹底解決SSAC問題。
經濟部評估，SSAC已獲得美國聯邦航空總署(FAA)型別認證後認證的SJ30-2商務客機兼具性能佳、價格便宜優勢，市場前景看好，惟國內並無製造航太公司專業經營能力，而目前的SSAC團隊陷入人事傾軋情況，更讓SSAC的經營很困難步上坦途，因此經濟部決定尋求具有專業經營的團隊接手，經濟部有意釋出經營權，只對SSAC做財務投資，坐收獲利。
經濟部耀華玻璃管理委員會透過美國投資銀行Wachovia尋找策略性投資人，據了解，現有一美國投資矽谷高科技的基金對SSAC極有興趣，而其團隊也有成員具有航太經營背景，願參與SSAC這次增資；雙方正洽談細節，股權約接近一半一半，但經濟部有意讓出經營權，估計經濟部股權將會降低至50％以下。
此外，在新經營團隊接手後，SSAC董事會將全面改選。目前SSAC董事約有十多位，未來將只有七、八位。行政院對現任SSAC董事長郭清江的出路，也已有安排。
儘管SSAC接到三百架飛機訂單，但量產並不順利，第一架飛機遲至去年十一月才交接，預訂今年一月底第二架將交機。一位經濟部官員說，美國十多年來沒有再出現過新的、成功的航太公司，若因經營團隊換手，可讓SSAC成功量產，甚至上市，台灣也可分享過去投資的回收。
Monday, January 08, 2007
誰是反智主義?
最近看到 白麟在自由廣場答辯南方朔對反智主義的定義. 我認為大家先要對知識份子 (Intellectuals) 有個瞭解. 知識份子並不等於學者. 引用Noam Chomsky (MIT的教授) 的定義: ：「知識份子是一個屬於任何人的職業，他代表著獨立思考，有些人或許有機會可以在社會上傳播他的思想。但這並不代表他就比一 位計程車司機更有知識，因為那個計程車司機或許比他更聰明並對問題有更透徹的看法。至於能不能讓自己的意見傳達出去，那是權力的問題。」
所謂反智主義 (Anti-Intellectualism) 是一群知識份子自以為他們是為著人民群眾, 但是他們又自認自己比人民高出一階層. 他們把不合他們自己想法的人稱為 [反智]. 這群新的知識份子多半只會在沒有風險及危機的情況下表現得很英勇, 並高談闊論.
台灣在言論及新聞自由的情況下, 我們天天看到各種言論及推測. 但是可能有更大多數的知識份子, 他們本身有獨特的看法並且感到有需要解決目前社會混亂的迫切, 但是這群人沒有權力能讓一般群眾知道他們的想法及建議, 而自己也淪為台灣社會的 silent majority 中 的一部份. 可惜的是台灣的公開言論被一群有權但卻是真正反智的人操縱.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
由高鐵通車談愛台灣的定義
台灣高鐵飆速啟航。儘管經過十六年政治爭議，試營運票務系統堪稱混亂，但從民眾踴躍搭乘的興奮之情，可以看出台灣期待高鐵成功之心。在雀躍迎高鐵的同時，消基會基於保障消費者的立場，在高鐵站散發傳單，呼籲民眾不要當白老鼠，「拒搭高鐵」。
消基會的舉動，當然未獲搶搭高鐵民眾的支持；遺憾的是，卻因此引發衝突，甚至言語粗暴，又出現「滾回中國」、「欺負台灣人」、「扯台灣人後腿」的字眼。在高鐵漂亮上路的同時，這起衝突事件，對高鐵而言，只是小事一件，但是對整體台灣社會而言，卻不容小覷。
民國六十八年，中部地區因為民眾食用米糠油，因而爆發多氯聯苯事件，受害民眾達二千多人，卻求償無門；同年底再爆發假酒事件，甚至有教授因為喝到假酒導致失明，同樣求償無門。因為這些背景，一群學者專家才動念起意決定成立消基會，為弱勢的消費者維護基本權益。
近卅年來，消基會從一支電話、一間辦公室開始，確實為台灣的消費者做了許多事。從大眾運輸到食品衛生，從手機話費到年節玩具，無一不是他們關切的重點。透過消基會的施壓，讓政府部門正視消費者權益，從而成立消保會和公平交易委員會。凡此種種，都和政治爭端無關，更與藍綠統獨無涉。若非這群學者專家有著一份深愛台灣的心，怎麼可能從無到有，即使有也很拮据，卻義無反顧地走了將近卅年，為消費者伸張正義？
即使這次消基會呼籲民眾拒當白老鼠，起意亦非關政治，而是因為高鐵營運前，履勘委員猶有強烈的不同意見，認為高鐵安全性依舊堪虞；此外，高鐵票價連行政院長蘇貞昌搭乘後，都認為可以更「合理一點」，消基會從這個角度出發無可厚非，而民眾依舊有自主選擇權，決定要不要搭乘、何時搭乘，這就是多元社會的可愛。
無可諱言，從政府政策決定要興建高鐵，到ＢＯＴ成型，高鐵系統從歐系到日系的轉折，甚至到高鐵資金挹注，沒有政治的介入，不會有今日的結果；而高鐵董事長殷琪因為投入政黨輪替前後的國政顧問團，以及爾後的總統府監委審薦小組，都使高鐵欲擺脫政治而不可得。但是，台灣高鐵畢竟就是一間希望營運成功的公司，高鐵不是政黨、不是派系，更不是要投入二○○八的政客，沒有道理因此成為政治或政黨一方的象徵，更沒有道理成為愛不愛台灣的戰場。
高鐵首航，熱情搭高鐵的民眾湧入，前往散發傳單的消基會，自會碰到冷言冷語的民眾，誰會希望自己滿腔興奮被澆冷水呢？但是，回句無聊或者根本不理，就是一種態度表達。何須激烈到由地方民代率領團體以粗暴的政治語言動作反嗆？
高鐵，讓台灣進入一個運輸的新紀元，啟動台灣城市變貌的樞紐；但不論如何，高鐵仍不過是台灣諸多大眾運輸中的一環，不論往來旅遊或商務，可以選擇航空、台鐵、國道客運、甚至自己開車，搭乘高鐵與否，完全取決於消費者對自己行的便利、票價高低的認知、乃至服務的良窳，這和愛不愛台灣毫無關係。
帶領鄉親搭乘高鐵，卻意 外引爆衝突的地方民代聲稱，並非故意與消基會打對台，只是同行鄉親「擦槍走火」。這就是最讓人遺憾與驚愕之處，什麼時候，台灣社會竟演變至此？若有不同意 見就使用最極端的政治語言，彼此傷害而後快？贊成自己的就是愛台灣，不同意見者就要「滾回去」？
這幾年，台灣社會因為政治對立愈益升高，政治人物無止盡地把政治語言氾濫到各個領域，凡有不同見解，動輒以政敵相待，從口水到潑糞，彷彿粗魯不文、惡劣鄙俗的言語，就能置人於死地。言語傷人，有時更利於刀刃，言語不見血，卻能痛徹心扉，言語製造的仇恨，甚至可能百代難解。
在高鐵啟航的同時，過程中用盡一切心力者，相信沒有人會希望高鐵成為台灣社會發抒政治不滿的場域。愛台灣、愛高鐵，什麼都可以愛，但是，拜託：愛，要用文明人的方法。
(轉自中時社論)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
