2020年11月12日 星期四

拜登會「姑息」習大大嗎?

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)拜登會「姑息」習大大嗎?

台灣挺川普的很多,因為美國總統能像川普般赤裸裸的直接而有效的壓制習近平,絕無僅有。同樣的理由,香港人也挺川普連任。中國人呢?最有趣的是,自由派知識份子與紅二代竟然站在一起,一致支持川普;不同的是,自由派是害怕習近平阻卻中國民主之路,紅二代是嫉恨習近平壟斷所有權力。

那麼拜登上台會不會從「反中」陣線撤退?拜登當副總統時,多次與習近平見面,部分媒體甚至用「私交甚篤」形容。大選前還有媒體爆料拜登兒子杭特與中國有龐大的利益勾結。更不必說川普的大肆抨擊,如果拜登選上,中國將「擁有美國」。用比較政治性的語言是:拜登會不會成為「姑息主義」的張伯倫第二?包容希特勒、墨索里尼?

拜登到底如何做?預測戛戛乎其難,拜登進入白宮後才會下手「落子」,那時或有端倪可循;不過現在可以參考的是外緣條件。這次大選,拜登拿到七千五百萬票、川普拿到七千萬票,川普的影響力不容小覷;拜登口口聲聲以「團結」為第一要務,自不會、不敢肆無忌彈「去川普」,平白得罪另一半選民,更何況共和黨掌控參院,也不容拜登一意孤行。

美國民主、共和兩黨在「抗中」上,實已取得共識,這是其二。主流媒體在這次大選中全力攻川普挺拜登,即使「極盡偏頗之能事」,但無論左媒或右媒一致「反中」,並支持台灣及香港人民,這是其三。再說普世價值還是美國高懸的核心價值,更是媒體不懈追求的信念。就算「拜登」變成「拜習」,恐怕也要顧忌媒體的威力,這是其四。

「populism」無確實定義,美國副國安顧問博明(Matt Pottinger)使用「平民主義」的漢譯取代「民粹主義」。根據「皮尤研究中心」十月六日民調,十四個國家中,有九個對中國負面看法達到十幾年來的最高點,美國高達七成三;拜登再「親中」,也必須考量民意;民意最重要,這是其五。

有人說蔡政府押川普,老實說蔡政府沒有押川普的本錢。真能押美大選的是蔣介石。美國一九四八年大選,蔣介石押杜威,雖然失敗,但蔣在美有龐大的「中國遊說團」,背後有參眾兩院議員、媒體巨頭、退職高級將領、企業鉅子、宗教人士等;這才有「押」的本錢。蔡政府連進場的門票都沒有,押什麼押!川普外交政策有利於台灣,受到台灣主流民意讚揚,如此而已。

國民黨立院黨團總召林為洲最好笑,他押拜登的理由是,一旦拜登當選就提出「撤銷萊豬進口公決案」。問題是,推銷美豬也是拜登總統的首要工作之一,尤其美國中南部的養豬、養牛戶更是拜登亟欲拉攏的選民,何況蔡政府面對的是美國政府,非川普一人而已。國民黨幼稚的一廂情願想法,以為拜登選上就會親中而壓縮民進黨空間,全無邏輯可言,更不必說政治邏輯了。

誰怕拜登?戰戰兢兢的是中國,不是台灣。

(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/


The KMT is wrong to look to Biden

The KMT is wrong to look to Biden

  • By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
    •  
    •  

Few would argue that the US is the world’s most powerful country. Elections elsewhere, whether Cabinet reshuffles or presidential elections, do not command the scrutiny that US elections do. The fight for the US presidency not only has nations around the world watching, but has their citizens on the edge of their seats.

China has just completed the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party Central Committee in Beijing but, despite that China aspires to replace the US in global importance, the proceedings drew little attention, short of a minor interest in whether the lifelong tenure of the party chairman was to be entered into the constitution.

Is the US president really all that important?

A decade ago, US political forecaster George Friedman, founder of the private intelligence publishing and consulting firm Statfor, known to some as the “shadow CIA,” said that no matter how dumb the US president is or how culturally base, the US is assured a decisive status in the international community based on its importance in the international world order.

Friedman even said that the caliber of its leaders is not all that important for the US.

Many in Taiwan were of the opinion that a second term for US President Donald Trump was important for Taiwan, but US president-elect Joe Biden’s victory is unlikely to have a huge effect in itself.

The point is that Taiwan and the US have shared interests. Naturally, Taiwan relies on the US, but one could equally say that the US needs Taiwan. When the US established diplomatic relations with China, it also promulgated the Taiwan Relations Act to make sure that Taiwan was not left out in the cold. Note that this is a domestic US law, not one between nations.

When China’s decidedly non-peaceful rise started causing concern among the cohort of democratic nations, Taiwan’s geopolitical importance was brought into starker relief and — together with the country’s successes in democracy and progressive social justice — even outside of the context of a looming US-China cold war, it is difficult to see how the US could ignore Taiwan’s importance for what it is.

In terms of which nation needs the other one more, Taiwan or the US, politics is not mathematics — it does not come down to a simple equation. Given the current situation, the US cannot maintain the first island chain without Taiwan and Taiwan needs the US to back it up against Chinese aggression.

As the pan-blue camp has been refused its dream of “one China,” it has attacked the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for aligning too closely with Washington, with the strongest criticism coming from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣).

After Tsai convened a high-level national security meeting on Oct. 31, Chiang said that Taiwan ought to maintain an appropriate distance between itself and other countries. When Chiang said “other countries,” he was surely referring to China.

As for getting close to the US, what would the positions of former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) have been? Forgetting the two Chiangs, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), during a visit to Trump’s Florida resort Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017, said: “We have a thousand reasons to get China-US relations right and not one reason to spoil the China-US relationship.”

Xi was essentially announcing that he wanted to cozy up to the US, just as former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) Presidential Office secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) intimated when he said: “Could we not do that, please?”

The KMT has been lambasting the Tsai administration for throwing in its lot with Trump, but it is the KMT that has thrown in its lot with Biden. If it wants to do that, it can — nobody will stop it — but it is embarking on an unrealistic mission if that is what it is attempting.

The KMT wants a changing of the guard at the White House because it wishes to frustrate Tsai’s drive to get Trump on Taiwan’s side against Beijing. KMT caucus whip Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) has signaled support for Biden, because with Trump out, the KMT plans to propose rescinding the executive order regarding US pork imports.

Biden’s win will not rescue the KMT. The most egregious example of this fallacy is a certain former Chungli mayor who told the Chinese media that, in the case of a Trump defeat, Beijing would teach the Democratic Progressive Party a lesson that it would not quickly forget. This is a strange thought, as it seems to assume that Biden would absent himself from the region.

CNN producer Brad Lendon hit the nail on the head when he wrote concerning the US’ approach to China’s rise: “The current state of play doesn’t leave much room for either ... Biden or ... Trump to pull back from supporting Taiwan.”

This is quite correct: It is the main thrust of US foreign policy.

Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.

Translated by Paul Cooper

2020年11月5日 星期四

淪為在野,國民黨狠押拜登!

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)淪為在野,國民黨狠押拜登!

美國不愧為世界第一大國,平平是大選,任何國家無論內閣改選或總統大選都不會成為全球賣點。美國總統爭霸則不然,不僅全世界矚目,甚至牽動無關的他國人民神經。中國剛剛開完「五中全會」,雖然懷有取美國而代之的動能與野望,依然沒有人鳥,最多盯著看會不會把「主席終身制」放入憲法而已。

美國總統有那麼神嗎?有「影子中情局」之稱的「戰略預測」,其創立者喬治.弗列德曼(George Friedman)十幾年前就給美國總統的地位下過註腳,他認為「美國總統就算再笨、文化水準就算再墮落,光憑美國在國際體系重中之重的實力,就可以保證美國持續掌握決定性的地位。」甚至斷言:「優良的領導人,對美國而言,沒那麼重要。」

川普連任對台灣固然重要,但拜登勝出也沒有關鍵性的影響。重點是,台灣與美國已形成利害依存、密邇不可分的深層結構。台灣固然依賴美國,難道美國就不依賴台灣?美國當年與中國建交,還要訂定〈台灣關係法〉保台;注意,這是國內法不是國際法。中國「非」和平崛起,引發民主國家陣線的疑懼,台灣的地緣政治位置更舉足輕重,再加上光輝的民主與尖端的公衛成就,何況現在遇到美中冷戰,美國豈能不視福爾摩沙為拱壁。至於到底台灣需要美國多些?還是美國需要台灣多些?政治不是數學,不能計算。現實情況是,美國保第一島鏈非台灣不可,台灣對抗中國,也需要美國當後盾。

藍營夢碎「一中」之後,就大肆抨擊蔡政府「親美」,最神一句話出自黨主席江啟臣之口。蔡政府召開國安會後,江啟臣表示,台灣與他國的關係,應秉持適當的等距。所謂「他國」就是中國。至於親美,兩蔣政權親不親?不要說兩蔣了,二○一七年四月六日,川普與習近平在美國佛羅里達州的海湖莊園會面,習近平公開表示:「有一千個理由搞好中美關係」;這形同是「抱美國大腿」的宣告!所以陳總統在任時秘書長邱義仁也不避諱說:「不抱美國大腿行嗎?」

至於國民黨抨擊蔡政府押寶川普,有無影是一回事,事實上國民黨押了拜登;押拜登就押拜登,沒有什麼可非議的。問題是,國民黨押拜登,卻是阿Q式的精神勝利法。國民黨上上下下都寄望白宮易手,藉此挫折蔡政府聯手川普抗中的銳氣,難怪立院黨團總召林為洲表態,號稱支持拜登;一旦川普落選,國民黨團就會提出撤銷美豬進口的行政命令公決案。老實說就算拜登贏了,也救不了國民黨。等而下之最不入流的是一位前中壢市長,他接受中媒採訪嗆聲說,若川普連任失敗,中國一定會狠狠教訓民進黨!奇怪了,拜登怎麼憑空消失了?

根據美國有線電視新聞網(CNN)Brad Lendon一針見血的看法:面對中國的軍事崛起,無論是連任的川普或入主白宮的拜登,在支持台灣上沒有多少退縮的空間。是的,這就是美國外交政策的大趨勢。

(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年10月31日 星期六

NCC must stand firm against KMT

NCC must stand firm against KMT

  • By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
    •  
    •  

CTi News’ six-year broadcasting license is set to expire on Dec. 11. It remains unclear whether it will be renewed, and many are calling on the National Communications Commission (NCC) not to renew it due to the channel’s pro-China leanings.

Beijing is worried, but dares not say anything for fear of making the case for the critics of the news channel. However, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is throwing its full weight behind a campaign for CTi News’ license to be renewed, decrying damage to freedom of expression in its opening salvo. If the situation were not so serious, it would have been comical.

A second front was opened by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and ousted Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), which was like cleaning a cesspit: The more muck you rake out, the worse the stench.

Many might be asking what right Ma has to talk of “freedom of expression” and how Han is qualified to raise the issue of “democratic freedoms.”

All that their public protestations achieved was to highlight the party’s manifest shortcomings on freedom of speech.

Ma is a professional hatchet man, nurtured by the party-state system. Armed with a Sun Yat-sen Scholarship, Ma as a young man headed to the US and became a campus spy, reporting on fellow Taiwanese students and compiling a blacklist of “offenders.”

From an early age, Ma took a hatchet to free speech, yet today he is accusing the NCC of “suppressing freedom, beyond even what was done during the Martial Law era.”

It is interesting that Ma uses the Martial Law era as benchmark for a lack of freedom of expression before accusing the government of doing even worse.

As Ma — a blood-stained perpetrator of that era — has first-hand knowledge, and since this chapter of the nation’s history is still in recent memory, perhaps he should step forward and explain how freedom of expression was quashed by the party-state and in which way the government is doing worse today.

While in the US, Ma blacklisted Taiwanese students for “political crimes,” yet he now pretends to be an innocent observer compelled to take a stand against crimes against free speech. If he had a shred of moral fiber in his body, he would never show his face in public again.

Meanwhile, Han has called on the public, whether people like the channel or not, to stand behind CTi News to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He also said that defending the channel would show the real measure of Taiwan’s democracy, as the hallmark of a dictatorship is when no alternative views are accepted.

The problem is that Han, who spent nine years in China, took to the People’s Republic of China dictatorship like a fish to water.

Until the CTi News controversy, had he ever displayed any interest in democracy, freedom of expression or freedom of the press? No, Han enjoyed his time in autocratic China a little too much.

Another problem with Han’s stance is that the alternative that CTi News represents is problematic. In a democracy, alternative viewpoints are welcomed; pumping out Chinese Communist Party propaganda is not.

Washington last month announced that by the end of this year, all US universities must close Confucius Institutes on their campuses. Nobody in the US has said that this policy is an assault on academic freedom.

Washington earlier this year designated a number of Chinese state-run media outlets operating in the US as foreign missions. Nobody in the US has criticized their government for encroaching on freedom of the press.

CTi News has, in accordance with regulations, applied for an extension of its broadcast license. Likewise, the NCC must, according to the law, decide whether to renew it.

Critics are accusing the NCC of violating freedom of expression by following its legal mandate — that is completely absurd.

Compelling the NCC to renew the license would have three negative consequences: It would cause broadcast regulations to become unenforceable, turn the commission into a toothless regulator and produce a stale broadcast media environment whereby established players have the right to exist in perpetuity.

The NCC has laid out eight assessment criteria at CTi News’ administrative hearing, which started on Monday last week. The main theme running through them can be distilled into two words: national security.

The accountability of Want Want China Times Media Group founder Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) is a secondary theme: Are there any internal controls of the day-to-day running of CTi News’ output? Is its financial structure sound? Does Tsai’s business involvement in China create a conflict of interest and constitute a national security threat?

Indeed, Article 10 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法) clearly states that a license application shall be rejected if the applicant’s operations plan could adversely affect national security.

Interestingly, those who are advocating ignoring the law are also saying that the Regulations for License Renewal Applications by Broadcasting Enterprises (廣播事業申請換發執照辦法) and the Examination Regulations for the License Renewal of Satellite Broadcasting and Foreign Satellite Broadcasting Businesses (衛星廣播電視事業及境外衛星廣播電視事業換照審查辦法) make no mention of “national security,” claiming this proves that the NCC is engaging in political censorship.

The NCC has set out its stall. If it is relentlessly attacked by the KMT so that it might be forced to retreat into its shell, it would not just damage the commission’s authority or that of the whole Democratic Progressive Party administration: The greatest damage would be done to national security.

Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.

Translated by Edward Jones

2020年10月29日 星期四

美國大選,台灣怎麼站?

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)美國大選,台灣怎麼站?

「中國問題」在美國總統選舉中,向來不曾缺席過,但二○二○年大選,中國問題一躍成為競選主軸,重要性甚至掩蓋過經濟議題,過去絕無僅有。「抗中」是川普取勝的利器,逼得民主黨總統候選人拜登的競選團隊,不得不將拜登描繪成比川普更反中的鷹派,正是最好的寫照。最近流出有關拜登父子的「郵電門」,無論真相如何,主要目的就是把拜登與中國打在一起,從而凸顯川普是對付習近平/中共的能手。

很多人不喜歡川普,認為川普行事粗魯無文、有反智傾向,有白人至上的偏見,甚至也有人認為川普踩了民主的紅線,也就是說,川普欠缺了文明的高度。弔詭的是,川普之所短正見其所長,具有如此強悍品質的川普,剛好命定般的是對治中共野蠻的剋星;所謂一物剋一物,習近平遇到川普,假仙撐不下去了,川普直搗黃龍。中國愚弄、欺瞞、使詐這麼久,根本性的原因就出在美國以民主規範看待專制獨裁的中國、以君子態度對付流氓行為。中國捉住並穿透民主體制的漏洞,巧取豪奪,使中國人民淪為血淚奴工以打造世界工廠,經濟實力壯大的同時,黨天下發揮「槍桿子出政權」的原則強化軍事力量,要完成「超英趕美」的夙願;習近平能稱王稱霸,關鍵在此。

二○一二年習近平就任中共總書記之後,中國圖霸用心從潛伏進展為白熱。二○一七年川普訪問北京,見到習近平就稱「國王」,習近平先說:「我不是國王,我只是主席。」川普回應道:「不對,你是終身主席,所以你就是國王。」川普透露這個秘辛時還有好戲,川普表示:「後來習近平說,好罷,他喜歡……。」

其實稱習近平為「國王」,還是小看了,習近平要做的是「天子」,建構的是「天朝」,南海稱霸、形塑一帶一路如朝貢之路等等,在在要展現「大漢聲威」。二○一七推出大內宣電影《戰狼》的賣點,赫然是「犯我中華者,雖遠必誅」,只要對照從中國外交部發言人華春瑩的「十四億中國人民會做出強有力反應」,到習近平最近的恫嚇:「中國人民已經組織起來!⋯⋯是惹不得的,惹了就不好辦了。」沒有川普橫衝直撞的霸氣、蠻勁,哪壓得住「天朝」慈禧的狂傲?!

這就解釋了為什麼被中共/習大大霸凌、威嚇的台灣及香港人民最支持川普。英國民調機構YouGov針對歐洲七國、亞太八國,調查對川普與拜登的支持度,顯示最挺川普的是台灣與香港。而台灣民意基金會的最新民調,更細緻的分疏,台灣人有五成三支持川普,不樂見川普連任的三成一五;交叉分析顯示民進黨、民眾黨、時力多數支持者樂見川普連任,唯獨國民黨支持者只一成九樂見,反川普的高達七成;顯示國民黨與「天朝」看齊的心態。最典型的例子就是陸軍前總司令陳廷寵,公開說:「我們是中國人驕傲的象徵,……但中華民族有不少敗類,要做美日走狗。」天朝子民的血脈真是源遠流長呀!習近平的「十四億人惹不得的」,不足奇了。

老實說,台灣人支持川普與否,對美國大選幾無影響力,美國人民的選票,才能決定美國未來四年的走向。可以觀察的是,川普連任成功,習大大熬得過熬不過四年?共產黨會不會垮?如果拜登出線,台灣也不必太緊張,台灣已賺到川普的四年,中國戰狼原形遂不可掩,美國人的反中保台已蔚為主流,不會反轉了。

(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年10月22日 星期四

護航「中天」=護航中國

自由廣場》(金恒煒專欄)

「中天」電視台六年屆滿的換照時間到了,北京即使焦急也不敢作聲,倒是國民黨卯足全力護航,祭出「言論自由」當進攻的矛頭,令人發噱。馬英九及韓國瑜等的助攻,像打開自家的糞坑,愈掏愈臭。馬英九有什麼本錢奢談言論自由?韓國瑜有什麼資格侈言「民主自由」?自曝其短而已。

馬英九是蔣家黨國豢養的職業打手,拿中山獎學金到美國當校園特務,一天到晚打小報告、製造黑名單,從來就是言論自由的劊子手!現在卻反過來指控NCC:「打壓言論自由,甚至超越『戒嚴時代』。」馬英九承認「戒嚴時代」是負面指標,指控民進黨政府「甚至超越」,有趣。馬英九正是戒嚴時代斑斑血跡的加害者,那一頁歷史還活生生在眼前;馬英九何不現身說法告訴大家,到底戒嚴時代如何打壓言論自由?又如何今勝於昔?前手羅織黑名單、後手化妝成路人甲,臉皮真厚!真敢!馬英九若有一絲絲羞恥心,恐怕躲在地洞還怕不夠!厲害了,黨國馬英九。

韓國瑜則呼籲台灣人,不管喜不喜歡中天都應該站出來,捍衛的不是一家電視台,而是屬於大家的言論自由、新聞自由,並說這才是民主的真正表現,「沒有唱反調的媒體,是一個獨裁國家最鮮明的特徵」。問題之一是,韓國瑜在中國九年,如魚得水的生活於極權、專制政權中,快樂得不得了,哪有一丁點的民主思想?哪有一丁點在意言論自由、新聞自由?問題之二是,「中天」唱誰的反調?和誰同調?這才是問題。台灣確是民主國家,唱反調可,唱紅調絕不可。美國宣佈年底前關閉所有孔子學院,沒有人說是打壓學術自由,同樣的,美國管制五家親共官媒,沒有人抨擊是侵害媒體自由。就是這樣,沒有二話。

「中天」依法向NCC申請換照,同樣的,NCC依法必須裁決是否同意換照。NCC管制與裁決衛星廣播電視之權責來自法律,指控不予換照就是侵犯言論自由云云,完全搞錯對象。強迫換照非過不可,造成三種結果:法條擺爛、NCC放水、頻道萬年罔替。

NCC特列出八大項做為審查「中天」換照公聽會的內容,核心要旨不過四字:「國家安全」,其次才問責老闆蔡衍明的「適格性」:中天內控有沒有不當干預新聞製播、財務結構是否健全等,劍尖所指的就是蔡衍明與中國利益糾葛有無造成國家安全之虞?「國家安全」明文載於「衛星廣播電視法」第十條第三項,此時此刻自是重中之重。

有趣的是,有人捨法律不問,搬出「換發執照法」、「換照審查辦法」替中天喊冤,指出此二辦法沒有「國家安全」等字眼,以此坐實NCC是政治審查。行政辦法只是命令,位階在法律之下,與法律牴觸即失效;這樣也能掰?

NCC既已擺出陣仗,若在國民黨群毆之下當縮頭烏龜,受傷的不只是公權力、不只是民進黨政府,坐視「國家安全」而不顧才是罪莫大焉。

(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/

2020年10月15日 星期四

中華民國國民黨」?什麼碗糕!

自由廣場》《金恒煒專欄》「中華民國國民黨」?什麼碗糕!

國民黨黨團總召、政策會執行長林為洲拋出改黨名的議題,問「要不要去掉『中國』?」引起了黨內不同意見的爭議。明顯「中國」派佔了上風,迫使林為洲祭出「中華民國國民黨」來自救;這叫做越描越黑!

這話怎講?可以用多角度來考察:首先,這個「中華民國國民黨」黨名牴觸「政黨法」第八條第三項所規範的:「足以使人誤認為政府機關」的「不得」情形,法律上不成立;從意識形態而言,「中華民國國民黨」正是「黨國」思維的復辟,這不是改革而是倒退;從語意學上看,強調「中華民國」達得到達不到林為洲「去中國」的目的?離「改名」的原意十萬八千里,更不能取得主流民意的信服。

還有一個有趣對照。與林為洲「發難」的同一天,國民黨基隆黨部在二百人的國旗升旗典禮上,高懸的唯一宣示布條赫然是被開除前主席李登輝的名言「民之所欲常(長)在我心」;反映出地方議員的心聲:「多了中國兩字,在地方上不好選。」林為洲的思考正是著眼於選舉。

本來主張「改黨名」不設限的黨主席江啟臣,現在被迫改口,宣稱「如果改名改姓,個性都不改,好像也於事無補」云云。改名有沒有意義?有。有沒有用?有。「名者,實之賓也」,「名」就是門面,就是內裡的招牌。不重要嗎?舉兩個例子。錢玄同是《古史辨》的成員,他把自己名字改成「疑古玄同」,絕非無的放矢。胡適原名嗣穈,因為篤信達爾文的「適者生存」,遂改名「適」。同樣的,林為洲的「改名」之議,可以看成是一種向台灣選民表態的姿勢,也可看成展開國民黨「脫中」後新路線的宣告。

正當國民黨為改名鬧得沸沸揚揚時,前主席洪秀柱高調到中國去與中共謀統,難怪國民黨台南市議員蔡育輝要「拜託洪秀柱」,「她主張統一就不要在黨內攪和,統一就是沒有票。洪秀柱可以自己獨立門戶,另組一個兩岸統一的黨,看看有沒有選票。」洪秀柱才不甩呢,在中國表示:民意如流水,「民心是有可能隨之改變的」。這番秀逗的話,不怕閃了舌?連老共恐都不買!

就像禪宗搶衣缽一樣,黨人巴著黨不放,誰也不可能另組新政黨,誰也趕不走誰、誰出去誰死亡;看來是打不開的死結。其實也有解方。五○年代初,胡適寫信給蔣介石,勸他考慮國民黨分成幾個新政黨。胡適知道在蔣氏黨國體制下,不可能產生反對黨,這是沒有辦法下可以想到的唯一辦法。此一「胡說」,可以創造性的轉化以適合民主化台灣的國民黨政治發展;國民黨可以「裂」而「不分」。講清楚一點,就是分成以馬英九、洪秀柱等為首的堅持「中國」的「中國派」,另外成立以「台灣」、「本土」為號召的「本土派」,都在「中國國民黨」旗幟下,透過正當的民主競爭,兩派在初選中定出勝負,決定黨的路線。好處是,讓國民黨認真學習並落實黨內民主,完善民主程序;更重要的是脫困,與其陷在「中」、「台」兩難,不如用理性思考與計算找出口。

林為洲既然已打破蛋殼,要做成荷包蛋或任其擺爛?答案不難選。

(作者金恒煒為政治評論者;http://wenichin.blogspot.tw/