Friday, March 31, 2006

年輕人, 踏出來吧!

剛剛看到這篇難得在台灣見到的好文章. 尤其是一位年青人所作的, 真是難得啊!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

『青年公民,請站出來吧!』--青年如何改造台灣

法蘭克
(4/01/2006 , ETToday. 北市人,研究生。表示,《夢想、理性、責任》是身為現代青年公民所須具備的基本特質與條件)

清代的曾國藩曾在《挺經》裡說過這一段話:「天下事在外吶喊議論,總是無益,必須躬自入局,請纓負責。」在現今混亂的政治局勢裡,身為當代青年 們,總是認為政治是黑暗的、是骯髒的、是厭惡的,因而避之唯恐不急,雖然有一小部分的人,仍然對於相關之公共事務議題仍可能會討論、批判當下情勢,提出個 人之看法;但絕大部分的人,則大多是冷漠的面對,甚而是對於當今情勢,一問三不知。

「政治,是管理眾人之事。」解嚴過後逐步走向民主的台灣社會,除了需要時間的累積,最主要還是早期的228事件與白色恐怖等政治迫害之陰影,使得 台灣人民忘卻積極參與公共事務的熱情。而過去大專以上的青年,在社會的期待與教育的結構裡,是一群被稱呼為「知識份子」的階層,無論是過往日據時代主動關 心社會與鄉里的地方仕紳;清末民初時,國父孫中山先生所引領的國民革命;又或者是民國以後的五四運動,直至九零年代的野百合學運等,一直都是這些「運動」 的中堅份子,成為淨化社會的重要力量;反觀現今,這群相對冷漠的知識份子,一方面的批判政治黑暗,一方面卻又不去理會之,甚而是對於公共事務的無知,但假 如在這樣的邏輯概念下,真正的好人才與知識份子們,都無法躬自入局、請纓負責,主動參與公共事務,那人們又怎麼能期待,整個政治情勢會越來越好呢?

而在台灣現今資本主義當道的社會風氣下,青年所關心的事務與格局,也越來越小,無不只關切金錢、創業與發財等自身之事。故筆者認為,要「青年改變 台灣」,應先從青年本身做起,故本人提出「公民」之概念,期待現代青年公民能主動關切社會,參與公共事務,在了解基本知識與常識的情況下,做理性的思考而 提出相關論述,並對自己的行為與言論負責。公民(Citizen)一詞,在西方歷史的傳統中,最早被定義為「屬於一個特定地理領域的人」,而時至現代,則 有更多的學者定義了其權利與義務,根據美國學者Kaltsounis 1990)指出,一位健全的民主公民,必須具有五項特質:

1
、有足夠的基本知識,以了解社會、政治、經濟、法律四個層面的結構、功能及其歷史背景。

2
、熱衷民主的價值,包括基本的價值,如個人的學校、自由等;

3
、社會機構的價值,如個人有機會均等的權利、吸收知識和語言溝通的自由等;

4
、個人的價值,如個人能合理地做決定、工作有責任感並樂意參與等。

5
、參與民主運作的技能,包括自己找尋知識與運用知識,而非讓他人灌輸知識;對社會的參與,如表達自己的意見、與他人討論或辯論以獲得共識;對政治的參與,如投票選舉、參加會議等。參與社會事務的興趣和意願。能積極負責地參與。

故根據以上之說法,學校的教育就顯得異常重要,除了應該加強公民教育之課程,更應從行為上著手,讓青年公民於校內,就可主動參與各類事務,提出服 務,主動關心社會,關心自身周圍之環境;除此之外,校方若能有效的、積極的、真正的開放校園內的學生自治,讓學生身份的青年公民們,在求學階段就能獲得相 關的基本知識,並能學習民主的價值,參與民主事務的運作,想必對於未來,青年公民走出校園關心社會,有其正面的幫助,對於台灣的未來的發展,更是重要。

故在此鄭重呼籲青年公民們,請別忘記你身為青年人的夢想,擔起你公民的角色,以理性的思維,看待天下之事,並為你們的行為,負上最大的責任,「青年公民,請站出來吧!」


Saturday, March 25, 2006

How come we don't read this in Taiwanese news?

According to news of Agence France Presse (Mar. 22, 2006) :

Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian assured the United States he would not push for independence during the rest of his term, after his decision to scrap a unification council touched nerves in Washington and Beijing.

"I would like to say again that my previous pledge to the US government and President Bush (not to push for independence) has not changed," he told the new de facto US embassador Stephen M. Young.

"The Taiwan government, its people and myself will continue to serve as a responsible contributor to the maintaining of peace in the Taiwan Strait," Chen said.

The president said he believed the relationship between Taiwan and the United States would become closer and promised that "there will not be any so-called surprise" before he retires in 2008.

Washington was caught unprepared when Chen last month formally scrapped the National Unification Council and guidelines on reunification with China.

More discussion on Democracy

As you may have noticed, I have posted lots of articles on the issue of democracy. Here is another good article talking about the cultivation of democracy. In my article published in last August, I talking about the fallacy of "spreading the democracy" or "transplant the US democracy" to other part of the world. In this article, whichi is published on LA Times on March 25, the author discussed the cultivation of democracy in Muslin South-Eastern counteries. ----- Big Eagle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultivating the Seeds of Democracy

By Anwar Ibrahim, ANWAR IBRAHIM is a former finance minister and deputy prime minister of Malaysia. He is a visiting professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Washington.
(From LA TImes, March 25, 2006 )


SINCE 9/11, the United States has pursued what the White House calls a "forward strategy of freedom" predicated on the belief that a dearth of democracy in Muslim countries has led to the spread of a deadly strain of Islamic extremism. Emboldened by a hard-won ideological victory over the regimes in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, the U.S. once again has sought to foment democracy abroad to ensure security at home.

However, as the first returns come in on this democratization effort in the Muslim world, there is growing anxiety in the U.S. about the resulting character of these nascent, freely elected governments. Some have begun to even question whether these countries have the innate ability to sustain democracy.

Although it cannot be denied that U.S. initiatives for reform have contributed significantly to developments in the Middle East, fear is growing that radicals may hijack democracy. Recent Islamist electoral successes in Iran, Egypt and the Palestinian territories have given rise to questions about the ability of liberal forces to prevail against fundamentalism.

For the United States, the fear is real, though perhaps tinged with a bit of Islamophobia: How terrible an irony it would be if this grand effort to spread liberty abroad resulted in anti-U.S. Islamic states imposing Sharia, or Islamic law, on their people.

The example of Hamas' ascension in Gaza and the West Bank presents obvious difficulties. But it would be fallacious to assume that it was democracy that voted in Islamic extremism. More correctly, it was the years of corruption and abuse of power of the Fatah-led administration that voted Hamas into power. If the exercise of democracy is about venting the people's anger and dissatisfaction with the powers that be, then the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Be that as it may, there are some who say that "stability" not liberty is what the U.S. should be promoting throughout the Islamic world. Their view is that championing electoral democracy does not immediately serve U.S. interests abroad, particularly in the war on terrorism, and that the hearts and minds of terrorists and suicide bombers are not turned by the virtues of democracy. They say the war against terrorism must be waged with an iron hand, not kid gloves woven from the fabric of constitutional liberties.

These views on democracy and stability in the Muslim world are not only wrong but carry grave consequences.

In a way, Washington's strategy may be viewed as expiation for past sins, when the U.S. was a stumbling block to democracy in the Middle East. Iran was a democracy in 1953 when the CIA engineered the coup that transformed it into an absolute monarchy. The U.S. also has supported other tyrants in the region, including, of course, Saddam Hussein. All of this in the name of stability and security in the decades-long confrontation with the communist bloc.

Is Washington really caught between the Scylla of supporting dictators and the Charybdis of promoting democracies that could bring Islamist radicals to power?

THE BEST ANSWERS to the question of whether America should reassess its strategy lie in Indonesia and Turkey, refreshing examples of Muslim democratic self-assertion.

Seven years ago, Indonesia plunged headlong into democracy after more than 30 years of autocratic dictatorship. As the largest Muslim nation in the world, it stands out as perhaps the most significant political phenomenon in the recent history of democracy. Indonesians have gone to the polls twice since, and they overwhelmingly rejected the Islamist radicals, who then tried to push their agenda through other avenues. Again, this was met with a resounding "no" by the Indonesian people, including major Muslim organizations.

The press in Indonesia is free, and the elections are fair. Fundamental liberties are enshrined in the constitution and fully recognized and respected by the powers that be. For example, unlike in neighboring Malaysia, Indonesians may gather to protest government decisions and policies without fear of reprisals. Arbitrary arrests and political detentions are unheard of.

As fledgling democracies, Indonesia and Turkey still have a long way to go. In Indonesia, it is in fulfilling the socioeconomic objectives of democracy that can only happen over time. In Turkey, the containment of an unrestricted military establishment has aided in that country's European Union ascension. Nevertheless, they now stand as beacons, both for Muslim nations and for those who seek to help them.

To be successful in its efforts to spread freedom, the U.S. must remember that constitutional democracy cannot take root in a society, whether secular or Islamic, without the firm commitment of the politically empowered to protect the fundamental rights to liberty, equality and freedom of all.

The true cultivation of democracy requires more than simply the introduction of elections. It also requires the establishment of democratic processes and a leveling of the political playing field. It needs the guarantee of a separation of powers and the liberation of the judicial system from the stranglehold of autocrats and tyrants. Most of all, it requires the protection of fundamental liberties and a free press.

It is in these prerequisites of democracy that the U.S. and the Muslim world need to invest, with far more significant effort, for the causes of liberty to truly prevail.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Should Taiwan Accept China's Pandas as Gift?


These days this subject became a topics of international focus. Here is a short report writeen by Ms Lee. It is an interest political game some people have to face. I place a poll to survey readers' choice, please vote. Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

貓熊(Panda)角力戰 

台灣陳水扁總統23日正式對北京拒絕接受兩隻貓熊,國際媒體報導指出,兩隻小貓熊已經變成北京統戰的工具,英國每日電訊報則把總統府的宣布描述的相當逗趣。

陳水扁總統23日正式宣佈拒絕接受北京贈與兩隻貓熊,這則新聞登上了美國有線電視新聞網(CNN),CNN主播報導說,「台灣總統說『謝了』,但 『不用這麼客氣』,拒絕了北京兩隻貓熊的贈與。」CNN主播報導說,台灣總統認為,貓熊應該在大自然環境下快樂長大,因此拒絕貓熊的贈與。

英國每日電訊報則是帶著略帶嘲謔的口吻,以「陳水扁說:我們並不熱中你的貓熊」為標題報導這則新聞,指出台灣認為,這兩隻動物不會很「開心」的來到台灣,「開心」兩字還加上引號。

台灣與大陸之間的貓熊拔河吸引國際媒體報導,就是認為貓熊故事背後隱藏了兩岸政治的拉鋸角力。CNN記者說,「大陸贈與台灣一對貓熊就是為了加溫兩岸關係,並著眼於未來可能的兩岸統一。」

電訊報報導說,台灣拒絕被稱為「統戰貓熊」的大陸貓熊,顯示陳水扁總統與他的支持對中國的不信任。還說,國民黨雖然在內戰期間輸給共產黨逃到台 灣,「但是面對雙方都視為是新敵人的陳先生,國共對立在近年逐漸消退,雖然雙方意識型態還是非常不同,但是都相信兩岸最終統一。」而陳水扁先生則要台灣正 式獨立。

兩隻小貓熊變成政治貓熊,無獨有偶,美方最近也因為成本考量,考慮將各地貓熊送回中國,卻又擔心會引發北京與華府間的不快。貓熊要與不要成了國際外交大學問。 (中時記者李怡慧/3/24/’06編譯)

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

麥擱改啦(別再改了) --- 再談教改的問題.

Big Bird saw this article and likes to share with you about the other aspect of Education Reform :
2006.03.22  中國時報

都是教改的錯?

莊佩璋

教育部長杜正勝到某學者家作客。學者有個兒子正讀國中。杜殷殷詢問:「學校還好嗎?」「老師好不好?」「新教材能不能適應?」小孩則隨口敷衍:「都很好!」

杜走後,學者對兒子說:「平常對教育意見一大堆,怎麼見到教育部長,就一聲不吭啦?小小年紀,就這麼世故,鄉愿!」

小孩一臉無辜地說:「我只是怕多講話,部長又要教改……。」

現在,大部分家長都聞教改而色變。因為以前是小補,教改後變大補;一綱一本只需一補,一綱多本則須多補;聯考一試定生死,是早死早超生,教改後則是分段凌遲;學校愈強調快樂學習,學生課後就愈需痛苦補習。所以社會普遍的心聲是:「麥擱改啦!」

也因為捅出教改這爛攤子,很多白老鼠的家長一提到李遠哲,都罵聲不絕。但是,這一切真的都是李遠哲與教育部的錯嗎?

就以加考作文為例好了。自從升學考試不考作文後,學校、學生都不把作文當一回事,搞到大學生連封信也寫不通,更別提論文寫作了。在這種情況下,杜正勝決定恢復考作文,有錯嗎?

可是,加考作文一確定,作文補習班就出現了。然後,名師就像名嘴解盤:「我研究過計分方式,規定寫一百五十個字,你只能增減十個字,否則會 扣分。文章內一定要出現三個成語,以展現程度。但,也不宜過度,否則會引起閱卷老師反感。更重要的是,絕不能有錯別字,沒把握就不要寫……。你們放心,只 要聽我幾堂課,保證能讓你們的作文脫胎換骨,絕對考高分。」

加考作文,本意是藉考試引導教學,讓學生廣泛閱讀,用心寫作。遺憾的是,我們這個民族短視近利,不願長期運動以強筋壯骨,只想一時進補來脫胎換骨。而且,學生應付學業已不暇,誰還有餘裕廣泛閱讀?結果就是補習班大發利市,學生則身心俱疲。

李遠哲、杜正勝接下教改十字架時,可能沒想到學業就如同結婚典禮,都是家長的事;有辛苦競爭的父母,就不可能有快樂學習的小孩。家長互比高 下,不肯讓自己小孩輸在起跑點,逼小孩偷跑,幼稚園補英語、心算、珠算,小學則補理化、數學,搞得人人自危。在這種病態社會環境上,怎可能成功移植歐美的 教育制度?

教改,其實並沒有助長補習;而是補習使一切教改都只是「叫」改。

Big Bird want to emphasize the words "移植" (transplant) used in the article.

Did You Notice the New Feature?

Hi!

I just add a minipoll in this Blog. Please look at the bottom of right side column and response the question. I think it is helpful to me and also hlep many other readers to know the trend on certain questions I imposed here.

Thank you for your visit and "Vote"!

Big Eagle

Monday, March 20, 2006

After 318 Demonstration

Many people talked about the aftermath of the exciting demonstration on 3/18/2006. I found the following article posted on ETToday has unique view on the issue. May be those effort of 10,000 people can be channelled to other effort to united people of this island. Talking about building a new country without the united support from all citizen is just only a slogan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

何來之國家認同影養不良症
2006/03/21

風林

新加坡前總理李光耀先生認為新加坡成功的理由,在於有著一分成功的軟體「文化」,就是中國的儒家思想。身為華人而在英國受教育,李光耀因認同中華文化,所以成就了新加坡,同時也成就了他自己。

臺灣這片土地上有不同時期聚集而來的墾殖者所組成,國家認同從理論上來看不論是來自於血源或文化的原生論、或是強調被動、外塑的成分結構論、以及 著重經過自我選擇建構論都有其必要性,這是一連串原生文化、外塑,經過自我選擇彼此間互相動蕩後的結果,但不論國家認同的結果為何,重要的是來自於臺灣是 個民主自由的國家,彼此應當相互尊重,進行溝通接納彼此的意見。

但很明顯的可以看到,目前不論是執政黨或是在野黨嚴重的缺乏溝通,為了吸引選票不斷的引起政治話題,我關心這片土地,喜歡不論是外省人還是本省 人,但卻覺得反分裂法遊行沒什麼必要,但我就必須被冠上統派的標籤,說我不愛臺灣;但參加遊行了就可以被稱之為愛臺灣,但此時我要被冠上獨派的標籤,到最 後似乎我失去了自由選擇參加或不參加遊行的能力,不參加就不認同臺灣這個國家?似乎我不是個民主國家的人。

參加不參加的問題來自於三一八反反分裂法大遊行有沒有意義,三一八反反分裂法大遊行事實上很像是在對國外宣稱,「臺灣不是個國家」,「別人家定的 分裂法案真的是可以管到我們」看起來就真的像是中國的一個省稱之為〔臺灣省〕在抗議「我要獨立」,這時臺灣跟之前的蒙古有什麼差異?難道中國制定的法案真 的可以管制我們嗎?陳水扁此時不該稱他自己是民選總統,應該改成中國大陸委派的地方官了?

反反分裂法遊行意義究竟在哪?如果說中國制定反分裂法會造成國際打壓臺灣,那也是源自於國際情勢而並非國家認同問題,何來之國家認同營養不良症, 有時間參加遊行到不如參考新加坡的作法好好思考根本的問題,不希望看到臺灣人手上麵包沒半條只會整天參加遊行大喊我們是個國家,這片土地早就是個國家了, 不是嗎?


參考文獻:

吳國華(2005),新加坡國家認同建構之研究以小學社會科及公民與道德教育教科書為分析對象,暨南大學東南亞研究所。

Heng, Geraldine & Janadas Devan(1995),國家父權:新加坡國族主義、性、與種族的政治,選自《性與性別讀本》,Roger LancasterMicaela Di Leonardo編,紐約,Routledge出版,107-121頁。

林泉忠、鍾庭耀、游清鑫(2005),香港、台灣、澳門、沖繩民眾文化與國家認同國際比較調查。

施正鋒(2005),多元文化主義之下的民族認同與國家認同,淡江大學公共行政學系暨公共政策研究所教授。

作者風林,高雄某大學企管所學生,高市人。

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Worry about the Low Birth Rate in Taiwan

Big Eagle has pointed out frequently about the urgent attention of the low birth rate in recently years. One can see the relation of the nation's GDP with her birth rate. (for eample, see Wylie's analysis at BBS' Forum at NATPA BBS). Now, this year's statistical data show Taiwan's bith rate dropped AGAIN from last year : from 1.2 to 0.9 (note: in the following article it says 1.18 to 1.12, which is different from the earlier repor). The editorial article from Business Times is a sensible call for a serious attention by the government.
--------------------------------------------------------
2006.03.09  工商時報 切莫忽視生育率創新低的社經效應工商社論
最近幾年一再成為熱門話題的國內生育率降低問題,日昨因為
內政部公布資料證實再創歷史新低而引發朝野注意。我們認為,少子化及人口老化現象提早來臨,對台灣的政治、社會、經濟發展形成嚴重威脅,朝野不能等閒視之,必須儘速採取有效因應對策;退一步言,即使不能力挽狂瀾,至少也要阻止其惡化。
依據
內政部戶政司提供最新統計,國人粗出生率從二○○四年的千分之九.六,降為去年的千分之九.○六,新生兒總數也從二十一萬七千六百人,減少為二十萬五千八百人,減少了將近一萬兩千人。估算每位育齡婦女一生所生嬰兒數,亦從一.一八人降為一.一二人。國內女性同胞不愛或不敢生小孩以致生育率創新低,業已使台灣加入世界其他少子化國家的競賽行列。目前出生率低於我國的國家僅有德國千分之八.六、奧地利千分之八.九,亞洲國家最低的日本為千分之八.八,台灣緊追其後。
台灣人口增加數量趨緩,甚至出現少子化現象,在最近幾年日益明顯。民國七十一年時,我國新生兒還有四十一萬四千人之多,二十三年後的今天,新生兒數目竟然減半。如依照目前每年減少一萬二千人的趨勢發展,最快民國一百年時,我國人口死亡數會超過出生數,形成人口負成長,比政府所估計的提早十五年。與少子化同時威脅台灣社經發展的還有老人化嚴重。以往,國人僅知道日本是全球人口老化程度最嚴重國家。然而,台灣少子化伴隨人口老化現象的加速發展,卻使台灣「迎頭趕上」日本,諸多政治、社會、經濟問題將接踵而來,政府不能不嚴肅看待,我們則願從經濟角度提供看法給朝野參考。
少子化趨勢繼續發展下去,首當其衝的當然是勞動力萎縮。去年國內工作人口一千六百三十六萬人,占總人口數七四. 一%,預計到民國一四○年時,比例將降低到五五.六二%。平均每一年減少十五萬工作人口,對經濟發展的可能影響顯然不能低估。事實上,工作人口減少,必然威脅經濟,依據東吳大學教授鍾俊文研究,如果排除生產力提升因素,隨著工作人口減少,民國一一五年之前,台灣經濟成長率平均可能僅有○.○四%。當然如果台灣的生產力能夠提升到美、日、德、新加坡水準,則民國一一五年之前,台灣平均經濟成長率可以達到三.二七%,但這樣的假設似乎不切實際。
勞動力萎縮,國內生產毛額降低之外,少子化引發的問題預料還會有很多。譬如,我們認為政府對總體經濟的規畫即應慎重考慮少子化的因素。包括自來水、電力的供應,火車、航空、道路等交通建設的推動,乃至各大中小學硬體及
軟體設備的規畫及供應,我們都認為應該詳細研究,配合少子化或人口數量的變化來調整。就以大專院校的供需為例,二十年前尚呈現供不應求的大專院校,這幾年來因為經由升級或擴建而普遍增加,教育界普遍流傳的笑話是,想不考上大專院校比考上還難。如果,前往對岸求學的趨勢繼續下去,大專院校招生不易或招不到學生的窘境,可能提早發生。
事實上,大專院校或其他經建設備可能空置的夢魘,已經先行在幼稚園及托兒所預演。由於少子化影響,台灣幼稚園、托兒所普遍因為新生來源日減而陷入經營艱困局面。據統計,去年台灣各縣市停業的幼稚園共一一五家,托兒所也有一四四家。當然幼稚園、托兒所停業的原因可能有很多,例如負責人轉業、移民,或品質不佳遭人唾棄等,但新生來源劇減,入不敷出應該是一般幼稚園及托兒所紛紛停業的主因。即使不必停業,但根據實證,為了爭搶有限的新生來源,部分業者削價競爭,甚至喊出「兩人同行,一人免費」,或推出各種不同減價優惠措施以爭取新生者大有人在。
人口減少,空間增加,大家可能活著較優閒;但經濟問題很現實,其他條件未具備及完善前,突然而來的少子化挑戰及打擊,國人可能無法接受,如何有效提高生育率,應是政府的當務之急。

Friday, March 03, 2006

該重視台灣教改的問題了!

Big Eagle 很高興有人注意到教育問題, It is about time....

真的輸在起跑點!
2006/03/04
00:11

蔡玉真「東森麻辣午餐主持

台灣輸南韓,好像一點都不奇怪,因為輸的不只是兩國產品的國際競爭力,連基礎教育的起跑點,台灣都遠遠落後在亞洲主要國家之後。商業週刊最新的封 面故事探討「80800的戰爭」,這場戰爭的意義是說台灣的九年義務教育,平均每一位學童所使用到的經費比率只有南韓的十分之一。面對這樣的情況,我們 的教育部長杜正勝還為了文言文的問題與立委對罵,甚至還在當眾宣讀沒幾個人看得懂的、漢羅拼音夾雜的海翁宣言。

不管是文言文的問題,還是剛出爐的「青少年台灣文庫」當中沒幾個人看得懂的「beh」、「pia」」、「teh」等等比火星文還難懂的漢羅拼音。這些問題,對吃起營養午餐來仍然「面有菜色」的許多偏遠學校來說,學校連粉刷牆壁都沒有錢,還念什麼海翁宣言!


「苦不能苦孩子,窮不能窮教育」,連中國大陸的農村都會隨處貼著這樣的標語來提醒教育的重要。但是,看看台灣的教育經費,平均每位學生的教育經費 只有日本的三分之一,教育預算中實質花費在每位學生身上的費用台灣是82美元,南韓是855美元,這樣的數字會把很多家長嚇壞了。


實際上,一年四千多億的教育預算實際花在學生身上的只有3.95%。雖然教育部提出數據,說教育經費八年增加2.8倍,但是,這些增加的經費卻是 花在老師的退休金及硬體設備。我們看見許多教師為了18%改革走上街頭,卻不見老師為了學生的權益站出來,逼學生寫悔過書、向家長樂捐,學校喊窮卻能編大 筆預算興建校舍、體育館。台灣的教育,如果看到教育部長杜正勝的表現,再仔細看看這些數字,能不叫人擔心嗎?


Thursday, March 02, 2006

US is Still Unclear

Four days after President Chen's announcement of aboilishing NUC on 2/27, US state department asked for official clarification..You can read the text by downloading the graph and enlarge it.