Ting's Coffeeshop

Young People Hit the Streets, Asking for a Job and Some Change

2009-12-14T07:00:00.000-05:00

The people in Taiwan have witnessed much change throughout the years, but they are facing times of change yet again. The relationship with China sailed into uncharted waters as President Ma Ying-jeou rushes further economic integration with China, the United States seems to have swept Taiwan under the carpet, and no one really knows when the economy will boom as it once did.

In the middle of all this change around them, Taiwanese voters begrudgingly went to the polls last weekend to cast ballots in the so-called “Trinity Election”. Yes, most people are focused on the results in Yilan. Commentators jumped at the chance to talk about why someone won or lost, and hogged bandwidth to lecture to us what this all means for next year’s metropolitan elections.

However, I want to propose that we look a bit farther into the future, about 15 years or 25 years. Neither Chen Shui-bian nor Ma Ying-jeou, or even Tsai Ing-wen, will be of any significance. What would be different? I wonder, if the battle lines in Taiwan will still be along national identity lines, or whether organized crime will still control local politics, or the same political parties will still use the same slogans and make the same policy promises. (If they make the same promises every election, doesn’t that mean the promises were never fulfilled?) Will there have been any structural change in Taiwan for the better?

The answer of course, partially, will lie with the political leaders at that time. These leaders would be in their 20s and 30s today, either slaving away at their first or second jobs, staying up all night studying for finals, or traveling the world. Some of them would have already entered politics today. Or last weekend, in fact. The local elections this year had a little twist, which anyone who watches Taiwanese cable news would know what I am talking about---the so called “pretty assassins” ploy by both parties. The Pretty Assassins are young, good looking men and women who ran for various spots all over the country. In addition, there were many more candidates this year who belong in the same age group, all fighting for a chance to offer their services to their constituents.

Aside from being young and ridiculously good looking, they also share some other things in common. Most of them have advanced degrees, some from prestigious institutions in the United States or Australia, in political science or economics. They have extensive working experiences, especially as staffers or secretaries for legislators and presidential candidates. They are well-spoken, poised, and have sincere smiles. They connect very well with their constituents, who watched these young candidates grow up in their very own neighborhoods. And all of them promised some sort of “change”.

I am looking forward to the changes they will bring. The candidates in Yunlin and Chiayi in the south touched on the issue of taking care of their senior citizens, and drawing young people to return. They talked about increasing benefit packages and job opportunities. More importantly, underlying their young candidacy itself is the message that they will do things differently---they will be more outspoken, they will be more attentive to opinions, they will have more professional expertise. They will also have Facebook and Plurk accounts and actually know how to use them. They are supposed to lead us into a new era of Taiwanese politics.

Of course, trapdoors await in their paths. There are too many people who profit off of the power structure in the current era of Taiwanese politics, and they will not go away so easily. You have your local political bosses and political families, who decide how things are done in the neighborhood. There is organized crime trying to hold onto power in the local councils and money making businesses. Then there are the political party heads who are struggling for power themselves, and hogging up seats at the steering committee meetings. Finally, constituents themselves can be finicky and demand that their representative follow their every whim and fancy. Everyone in the game has learned to depend on the other players in the game to survive. In other words, we need structural change but the structure is built to resist change.

Then isn’t getting new blood into the structure the way to change it? Yes, but it is hard. Harder, because these young leaders of tomorrow are already tied up with the structure of today. Most if not all of the candidates come from political families themselves, and even in the best political families there will be some pressure to keep doing things their way. How would they navigate the local councils, if the people out to hurt them know of their histories? Furthermore, they owe the party so much for helping them in the election that the debt has to be paid somehow, whether through publicly supporting the party line against their better judgment, or by entering nasty power struggles with the people at the top. Finally, constituents who are resisting to change will not be so kind next time they go to the voting booth if God forbid someone is trying to do things differently.

And honestly speaking, there are too many things that need to be changed in Taiwan. Senior citizens need to be taken care of, and they need to have better access to better caretakers. Farmers need to have new ways to survive once Taiwan opens up for free trade with China and the US. Young people need job opportunities, but they also need better schools and universities for their children. We also need to have less devastating disasters, less over-urbanization, and less disparity in living standards. Most importantly, there is still the biggest change needed of all: someone has to come up with a national vision for survival and then be able to convince the people as a whole to labor and sacrifice for that vision. These are not changes that will happen simply by stuffing more cash into red-envelope government hand-outs or posting a message about their mood in the mornings on Facebook.

So to me, this election was not simply another chance to take out my blue and green crayons and count up who got more seats. Of course there had been young politicians entering the race and there will be more, but it is encouraging that there may be a chance that we will see some change happening. Will they be the new agents of change? Will they be swallowed by the old system? This struggle is something worth paying attention to.

Finally, for those of you who did not get elected, I would still believe that you will one day be an important piece of the future’s political puzzle. For those who got elected, I wish you all the wisdom, wits, and luck that you will need. For those who won in a landslide, I sincerely hope that you will use all of our support and faith in you, and really take us somewhere new. It will not be easy, but I know you did not sign up because it’s an easy job.

(Pending Publication in Taiwan Corner)

澎湖賭場不是豪賭而是穩輸

2009-09-17T09:11:00.000-04:00

澎湖博奕公投馬上就要舉行，雙方人馬積極的拉票。支持開放賭場的人強調賭場帶來的利潤可轉投資社會福利，但不否認負面社會效果，只說會有配套措施；反對者則呼籲人們拿出良心，不要讓人迷沉於賭博，保存澎湖的生態。這次公投將左右澎湖長久的未來，所以乍看之下真的是場豪賭，籌碼是澎湖居民自己的前途。大家都希望可以建設澎湖讓下一代更好，所以願意下這場賭注，可是現在開放賭場其實對澎湖來說，是穩輸的選擇。

澎湖開賭場，無非是想複製澳門經驗，引入拉斯維加斯的賭場集團開大型觀光賭場。除了賭博，還有精品商店，高級餐廳，時尚旅館套房，就像是給大人玩的迪士尼樂園。可是先看亞洲：有了澳門跟新加坡，再加上韓國，亞洲大型觀光賭場市場已經飽和。很難想像金沙集團（Las Vegas Sands）投資了澳門威尼斯人 Venetian Macao（新台幣七百七十九億）和新加坡濱海灣 Marina Bay Sands（新台幣兩千六百億）肯再花同樣規模的資金在離這些地方一兩個小時的澎湖。拉斯維加斯盛況早大不如前，各集團紛紛瀕臨財政危機，澳門金光大道若干計畫遭到停工，新加坡濱海灣工程也迫延期。這樣的狀況下，期望賭場集團投資澎湖更只留在白日夢的階段。

另一個開賭場的例子：美國印地安保留地從1988年開始大力發展賭博業，大多數的結局卻是犯罪率急速上升，道路和供水等無法負荷，族人賭博成癮，失業率提高。相同的，投資賭場就算拿到了短期的利多，也讓澎湖依賴著賭博業的錢，失去了永久轉型的機會。中央跟澎湖縣政府真的要填出大片的新生地，蓋機場跟發電廠，再奢望面臨破產的賭場集團搞一堆台北就吃得到的餐廳，香港就逛得到的精品店，澳門跟新加坡就玩得到的吃角子老虎機？如果效果不如期，要買單的還是澎湖的居民。

要讓客人來澎湖，我們不模仿人家有的，反而要強調人家沒有的。澎湖的景觀跟人文歷史在亞太地區裡都非常獨特。例如說，訪客可以參加澎湖媽祖節慶跟體驗漁民生活，了解先民渡海歷史跟與海共生的智慧。澎湖也可以發展宜家經濟，提昇居住環境，教育品質，吸引離開都會的人，或是打造優質的養老環境。另外，澎湖有能力成為海洋科技研發中心，例如潮汐發電或是海水淨化產業等等。無論如何，設計特別的制度跟法規，交通運輸跟寬頻網路升級，中央協助設立直接跟國際交流的觀光投資窗口，這些都是可以馬上落實的政策。

我們不應該看人家小海島發展賭場就一窩蜂的學，而忽略條件的不同和市場的走向。肯支持賭場的鄉親朋友，無非只是為了家裡的小孩謀福利，找出路；對後代的期望，這是大家都肯定的。而希望子孫以後能更幸福，我們更要思考清楚，是叫賭場給他們短暫的發財夢，還是教他們打造更有潛力的未來？筆者相信澎湖的朋友有足夠的智慧，做出長遠謀福的選擇，讓這場賭局變成全贏的局面。

(未發表）

除了救災，我們還能做什麼？

2009-09-17T09:03:00.000-04:00

八八水災重創台灣，看到一幕幕受災區跟災民的畫面，實在讓人感到心酸。不過想到災情背後的種種人為因素，更是讓人心寒。這次的浩劫雖然是因為天災而引起，卻因為整個國家政治系統無法有效長遠預防天災所帶來的破壞，加上我們因為缺乏公德心長期揮霍國土資產，許多條人命就白白的成了冤魂。

馬劉政府對於救災的應變能力以及對於災民的態度這裡就不多下筆，因為人民自有評價。可是把鏡頭拉開，政府對於國土規劃以及復育體制長期的漠不關心，更是加深災害的原因。沒有完善的國土規劃法規導致了國土任意發展，特別是高山敏感地帶更是過度開發，造成土質疏鬆，豪雨一來自然會崩塌下來。之前也是災後而啟動的國土復育條例草案，居然因為地方利益，而沒有下落。雖然事後不容易預測當時如果法案有通過的效果，可是我們可以看到，政府對天災最基本的態度卻是「災情一旦不是新聞頭條，長遠的計畫就該讓步給眼前的利益」，非常讓人遺憾。

現在政府應該做的不只是儘快通過國土計畫法以及相關的國土保育措施，還要保證計畫跟預算不會淪為地方政商搶著分贓的財源。我們不希望政府倉促結案只是為了防止票源流失，而是給我們一個詳細的，周全的計畫。哪裡要遷移，為什麼要遷，受影響的民眾怎麼補助，治水的目標以及策略，政府與民間監督管道等等，都應該跟人民交代清楚，也算是對犧牲的災民一個最基本的公道。

再者，這次台灣的浩劫，應該看成是一種共業。雖然天災可怕，但是更可怕的是我們缺乏現代必要的公德心。台灣地小人稠，已經是全世界超高人口密度地區。人跟人之間的距離縮短了，自然而然每個人大大小小的行為，都有全體共同的後果。在山區大量的砍伐樹木種植檳榔，雖然有利種植戶，可是引發的後果卻是長期全民所要承擔的。都會區大量二氧化碳污染，方便了都市的生活，卻造成氣候變動，導致颱風豪雨的破壞性越來越強。這次的災害給我們的教訓是，公德心不只是自己管好自己的事情，而是顧及到我們自己行為的全體後果，捨棄短視的利益來換取長遠的共同福祉。

在我們譴責政府救災應變能力不足造成人民無謂的死亡的同時，也該譴責沒有最基本的良心的政客把重建的資源變成樁腳分贓，更不可以放棄商討長期保護家園的政策的機會。土石流掩埋全村，已經不是一次的事。台灣屢次颱風與地震，都會發生大型土石流。以前發生，這次發生，以後還會陸續的重演，如果我們不把握機會做出實際的，永久的改變。

(未發表）

轄區大小根本無關競爭力

2009-09-05T22:45:00.000-04:00

最近縣市升格開始審核，各縣市為居民劃下「升格就過好日子」的錯覺，積極向中央爭取政績。各縣市都幻想升格後能擁有國際音樂廳、巨蛋、商港、金融區，甚至迪士尼樂園，不能媲美紐約或東京，也要能跟上海、首爾有得拼。為讓居民有這種「大都會」幻覺，縣市「合併升格」外，更「精簡」廢除鄉鎮市政府。集中管理轄區內的事務，讓大型政府有效的打造大型都會，增加國際可見度，是各縣市希望居民上鉤的口號。

問題是，台灣一定要有超大型都會嗎？合併與精簡，就一定是好的政策嗎？這些問題的答案並非絕對。瑞典與芬蘭的競爭力都在世界排名中名列前茅，但這兩個國家的首都都會區都沒有超過150萬人，跟台北市262萬人比起幾乎是一半；兩個首都的面積也如台北市的大小，並沒有到台北縣市合併的規模。瑞士日內瓦人口 18.5萬，是板橋市的四分之一；比利時的布魯塞爾人口10.8萬，比淡水鎮還小，可是兩個地方都是歐洲與世界各機構的重鎮。波士頓是美國高等教育中心，市政府轄區內的人口是北市的四分之一；矽谷帶動全世界電腦時代，但矽谷更是一連串的小鎮，根本不是都市。很明顯，轄區大小跟人口，跟所謂的競爭力並沒有絕對直接的關係。

大都會人口擁擠，卻缺乏左鄰右舍間的關係；房價高，卻沒有清靜的生活環境；物價高，卻不見得買得到最新鮮的東西；高架道路隔離社區，卻無法疏解車潮。之外，大都會需要大量人口與土地，但把都市高密度的發展模式無限擴張，卻會摧毀鄉村的文化資產，破壞生態平衡。更嚴重的是，大都會模式擴散，會讓既有的強勢團體（財團、建商、富人）繼續得利，而讓弱勢團體（原住民、新移民）繼續被壓榨。三鶯部落、樂生，以及數十年前康樂社區的居民承擔了都市發展成本，可是我們又得到了什麼？「大都會」是傳統製造出口模式的遺留物。作為世界代工，就是要土地與人力。要與其他代工經濟競爭，就是要擴張經濟規模，集中管理，所以縣市合併的思維就是理所當然的了。但是，台灣已無法以傳統的製造出口模式跟中國或是印度等競爭。

需整體規劃和參與

將來台灣的競爭實力，會是別於土地與人口大小的新實力；以後競爭不再是以「大」與「多」決勝負；若經濟該轉型，地方政府架構的思維，是不是也該轉型？縣市升格思維反映了一種虛晃的「大都會」發展思維。提升台灣競爭力，不是比賽都市大小而已，而是需要全盤規劃與全民參與，找出台灣將來的競爭實力，再來設計適當的地方制度。

作者為哈佛法學院Juris Doctor候選人、哈佛亞洲法律學會前會長

（蘋果日報 6/25/2009)

直轄市制度應該廢除

2009-09-05T22:39:00.000-04:00

《地方制度法》修法之後，台北縣也提出升格為「新北市」的計劃。對於民眾來說，這樣的變革應該是好事，可是這樣對台灣全體發展有利嗎？還是台灣政治形態因為短視又犧牲了長遠益處？

深化地方貧富差距

事實上，任何爭取直轄市升格對台灣發展都將造成嚴重傷害，因為廢除直轄市制度才是台灣真正需要的。

以現況來看，各縣市升格為直轄市不外有兩個理由：一、直轄市的中央資源分配比一般縣市多，更可以為民眾服務；二、直轄市是國家特別的首善之都，或是所謂帶動發展的火車頭，光環也比一般縣市大，台北市長室更是通往總統府大位必經的驛站。怪不得台中、台北縣，甚至桃園、彰化、台南，個個摩拳擦掌準備升格。

但是，如果人口夠大的縣市都升格的話，屆時中央政府還會有財力以現有的比率支援所有的直轄市嗎？到時候不是各直轄市的資源分配要減少，就是要繼續從剩下的縣市抽取資源來分給各直轄市；再者，無法升格的縣市除了資源分配不公之外，還有什麼本錢在各大直轄市的鬥爭中生存呢？這樣情況下，不是升格直轄市的時候所開的政策支票跳票，就是讓各直轄市保住優勢，而拿其他縣市的資源來補貼直轄市；這樣只會更深化地方貧富差距，導致地方政府之間的鬥爭與縣市人民對直轄市人民的厭惡。

為了避免直轄市過多分散資源的情形而只核准台中縣市升格，也將問題重重。北中高三直轄市繼續拿著不公平的資源，造成與其他縣市的爭執；行政院核准的標準與程序，目前也還完全不明朗，只讓台中縣市升格的話更是讓其他縣市質疑行政院審核的公正性，也會讓直轄市制度繼續淪為政客利益鬥爭的工具。

凍省造成等級差別

台灣於1997年凍省遺留下來最大問題，就是直轄市定位。原來，直轄市是與各省同等的自治團體，就是中央政府在分配地方自治體系下的第一層管理階層。「廢省」的精神應是把「省、直轄市」的等級廢除，將省跟直轄市應該一併處理。也就是說，「凍省」的時候，也應一併「凍結」直轄市的制度。再者，省級管理階層凍結後，實質上所有省底下劃分的縣與市已經變成直接被中央政府管轄，也實質上跟直轄市沒有太大的差別。

很可惜的，凍省的時候直轄市反而原封不動，造成直轄市與各縣市的恩怨；行政等級的差別，造成了資源分配的不公。《地方制度法》修法過後，恐怕不是各縣市升格分食資源，就是沒升格的縣市大呼行政院不公平。現在的政策不但沒把未完成的改革做完，反而深化不合理的直轄市制度。現在應進行的工作是直接把直轄市制度廢止，以遠見規劃台灣地方自治體制，讓各縣市享受公正的待遇。

作者為美國哈佛大學法學院Juris Doctor候選人、哈佛亞洲法律學會前會長

(蘋果日報 4/30/2009)