這是在閱讀蘇俊賓的第五號回函後其中一個署名學者,Kagan,針對第五號回函的回應.文中明確指出馬政府避重就輕,或是誤用或是引用不相關資料來為自己辯駁(Su defends his government’s policies through misuse of documents and through the use of irrelevant documents.).
延伸閱讀:
國際學者給台灣政府的第五封公開信與新聞局的回函
------
GIO’s response misses the point
By Richard Kagan
Friday, Dec 25, 2009, Page 8
Last Friday I received an e-mail from Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) responding to “Open letter to Taiwan’s president” (Nov. 13, page 8), which I signed with many other academics. This was one of a series of letters we have written concerning Taiwan’s eroding democratic freedoms, judicial systems and international relations. Su has responded in detail to the previous letters by defending the operations of the government with regard to the judicial system, and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) democratic reforms and policies.
上週五,我收到一封由台灣新聞局長蘇俊賓發出,回覆我參予連署的第五號公開信的電子郵件(第五號公開信日期是2009年11月13日),那是封給台灣政府一系列的公開信的其中一封.這系列公開信事關我們對台灣民主自由倒退,司法體系傾斜,國際關係緊張的憂慮. 蘇先生詳細回覆第五號公開信裡,替馬政府辯駁並強調馬政府對司法與民主改革的決心.
But this time, Su wanted to justify and praise Taiwan’s system by referring to the “international community’s assessments” on these matters. His attempt to defend Taiwan by using international standards actually backfired in several ways.
然而,蘇引用國際評等來誇讚台灣體系的作法,就很多方面來講,會收到相反的成效.(按:詳見第五封公開信的回函.蘇企圖引用特定機構的數據來辯駁)
Let me explain in some detail why I question the minister’s research and the professionalism of the GIO.
以下讓我詳敘我為什麼對新聞局的研究與專業有所質疑.
First, Su uses faulty methodology to prove his point by not providing a context for his argument. He correctly points out that Freedom House ranks Taiwan among the “free” countries of Asia. In the combined ratings of Political and Civil Liberties, Taiwan scores 1.5. This puts it with Israel, Japan and South Korea. The rank of No. 1 is filled mainly by European countries as well as the US and Canada. What he fails to note is that China is scored 6.5 out of a 7-point ranking. China is paired with Zimbabwe and just below Myanmar and North Korea, who scored a 7.
首先,蘇先生沒有提供上下文或來龍去脈而以有瑕疵的方法來證明他的論點. 他正確指出根據自由之家的報告,台灣的確為亞洲的"自由"國家. 在政治與公民自由綜合評比裡,台灣的分數是1.5分,和以色列,日本與南韓並列.最自由的國家幾為歐洲國家與美加. 蘇先生忽略不提的是中國在7分的評比裡得分6.5. 中國與辛巴威並列,且只比緬甸與北韓好一點,後兩者同為七分. (按:最近的新聞提到台灣的政治權利升級,公民自由降等)
Why, then, is the Ma administration seeking rapprochement with China? How can a democratic country be so blind as to seek close relations with a government that is one of the most among authoritarian societies in the world? Who will benefit? Which is the likelier scenario — that China will force Taiwan to become less free, or that Taiwan will help China become more democratic?
那麼,馬政府為什麼要追求與中國和解呢?為什麼一個民主國家盲目地對一個集權國家急於示好?誰會從中獲利?最有可能的情況究竟是中國將迫使台灣變得更不自由?亦或是台灣將幫助中國變得更民主?
We can actually see the consequence of this relationship in the Corruption Perceptions for this year. Su claims that Taiwan’s ranking in the report on 180 countries issued by Transparency International rose to No. 37. This statement reveals political alchemy at its best. For instance, Taiwan’s score in 2007 was 34. Numerically it did rise to 37. But the higher a country gets, the greater the index of corruption. Somalia is rated at No. 180. In fact, Taiwan fell into greater corruption by three points.
事實上我們從今年的貪腐印象可以見得結果. 蘇宣稱根據國際透明組織,台灣在180個國家裏的排名37. 這充其量顯示出政治巫術.的確,就排名上台灣提升到37,但是台灣在2007年排名34.愈後面的排名顯示愈多貪污.索馬利亞排名180. (也就是說)事實上,台灣的排名退步了三名.
China, meanwhile, moved from 72 in 2007 to is worst score ever, at 79, this year. By Su’s admission, both “regions” (Taiwan and China) are slouching toward Somalia in the corruption index.
在此同時,中國的排名從2007年的72名退步到79,有史以來最差的一次. 根據蘇所承認,這兩個"地區"(指蘇是台灣與中國為兩個地區)的貪污排名正向索馬利亞靠攏.
Since we talked about Taiwan’s relations with China in our letter, it is important to place Taiwan in the context of Beijing’s power and influence to control cross-strait dialogue.
既然我們在信中提到兩岸關係,在討論事情時就必須把北京對兩岸對話的影響力納入考量.
One can see this most significantly when analyzing press freedoms. Freedom House reports that China has a system of control that “originated under classic totalitarian conditions” and is being modernized to serve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership. In 2005, China was ranked as No. 177 out of a total of 194 countries. Freedom House does not include in its analysis China’s policies in Tibet. If Tibet had been considered, China’s ranking would certainly have been even worse.
最明顯的是新聞自由.自由之家的報告指出中國有現代化的系統的在"有組織的在傳統一個中國的條件下"維護中國共產黨在中國的領導權. 在2005年,中國在194個國家中排名177,而這個評比甚至排除中國在西藏(圖博)的政策. 如果自由之家把中國的西藏政策納入考量,中國的評比只會更糟.
How can Chinese make a rational and educated decision about policies toward Taiwan when they live in an iron box of propaganda? When Beijing talks about the feelings of the Chinese people, how does the leadership know what the people think if it does not allow certain information to be circulated, or criticism of its policies? And why would Taipei believe that Chinese have any independent ideas about cross-strait relations when they are ruled by a state that is similar to Myanmar and North Korea in preventing its people from having freedom of the press, freedom to form political parties and freedom to live in a system ruled by law?
What Su needs is an international standard for judging how governments treat each other. For instance, when looking at some of the international organizations that the minister mentions, I could not find any place called “Chinese Taipei,” “Chinese Taiwan” or “One China.” Freedom House, unlike Beijing and Taipei, uses the appropriate name of “Taiwan” and not any substitute to evaluate the country’s rights and freedoms. Why can’t the leadership in Taipei conform to this international usage?
蘇需要的是一套放諸國際皆準,國與國相互對待的標準. 例如,這些蘇所引用的國際組織提到台灣時使用台灣一辭,而不是中華台北,中華台灣,或是一個中國. 自由之家,不像北京或台北,使用適當的名稱稱呼台灣為台灣,而不是用一些替代的名稱,來對評估自由與人權.為什麼台北領導人不能夠採用國際一致的用法呢? (按:這個呼應到前幾段中,蘇俊賓以兩個"地區"而非兩個國家來稱呼台灣與中國的批評)
Su defends his government’s policies through misuse of documents and through the use of irrelevant documents. It does not matter how democratic Taiwan appears to be. What is important to ask is: What happens when a democracy seeks to join one of the authoritarian countries in the world? Actually, what should be compared are the statistics on the ruling parties of each country. The government of China is ruled by the CCP and not by the people. And the government of Taiwan is slowly reverting to a one-party state. In the Taiwan Strait, it is the leaders of the political parties, not government officials, who negotiate.
From a historical perspective, Su is engaging in the colonization of his country by an empire. No mater how pure the pearl is, when it lands in stomach of the predator, it no longer shines.
No comments:
Post a Comment