[記者陳秀玲、顏玉龍、蘇瑋璇/新北報導]

前言激情的選戰，瀰漫著濃濃的煙硝味，當候選人全力衝刺，另一半的扶持更是不可或缺的關鍵，而另一半的人氣或知名度，甚至也會為選情加分。

    　 一人當選　二人服務

  在新北市板橋區滿翠里活動中心，第六選區國民黨立委候選人林鴻池的「牽手」景玉鳳律師，正在舉辦「法律好幫手」各里巡迴演講，沒有媒體、不求曝光，在社區中默默舉辦免費法律講座，無非就是希望推廣法律常識，也是她服務鄉親的一種方式。

  林鴻池競選時許下「一人當選、二人服務」的承諾，開啟景玉鳳近廿年的免費法律諮詢之路。景玉鳳從一小時六千元談話費的名律師到免費法律諮詢，這樣的轉折，很多人都覺得不可思議，但她卻發現自己能為無助、弱勢的民眾解決法律困惑，更能感受到律師工作不只是在法庭上的針鋒相對，而是能夠為民眾紓解訟源，並且推廣法律常識。

  林鴻池服務選民，景玉鳳法律服務，這對法政夫妻同心協力，一路走來始終如一，因為她認為，台灣政治要更好，需要更多像她夫婿這樣誠懇、正直、專業、勤快的政治人物。（顏玉龍）

        昔日歌手為老公加分

  「不見中秋又逢冬，只有玫瑰雪中紅。」台語歌曲《雪中紅》原唱陳亮吟淡出歌壇多年，這次為了丈夫新北市第七選區民進黨候選人羅致政參選「復出」，在傳統市場拜票時應觀眾要求，拿起大聲公來段清唱，立即獲得如雷掌聲，比陳述政見更能吸引人氣。

  十一年前嫁給羅致政後，陳亮吟淡出影劇圈，過著平淡的生活。當先生透露希望替民進黨、替小英拿下一席的希望，內心雖然煎熬，但只想了十秒後，全力支持參選決定。

  選戰開打後，陳亮吟自然幫忙掃街拜票，打招呼方式從以前的微笑點頭，變成握手加上九十度角鞠躬，還會應婆婆媽媽要求「清唱一首」，主角羅致政反而被晾在一旁，忍不住苦笑的說，「乾脆請太太參選好了。」

  她說，羅致政使命感強烈，從出國讀書、回國教書做研究，任何事都全力以赴，這次參選立委已不是個人榮辱，而是對地方、對國家的使命感，希望選民能給他一次機會，讓羅致政貢獻所學，為國會注入清新活力。（林金池）

    　中央地方分進合擊

  新北市議員洪佳君是新北市第五選區國民黨立委候選人黃志雄的「牽手」，兩人過去在中央、地方事務分進合擊，頗獲稱許，本屆新北市第五選區選情如火如荼，洪佳君當仁不讓，擔任夫婿輔選大將，她笑說：「沒掛任何名，業務全都包！」

  洪佳君說，他倆已發展出一套分工模式，黃志雄上午赴立法院開會，她就守在選區，勤跑基層，下午洪佳君進市議會，就由黃留守地方。選舉期間掃菜市場拜票，候選人顧著和一側攤商握手，難免冷落另一側，但夫妻倆沒這困擾，分邊同步行動，洪總不忘提醒：「黃志雄就在對面，親身來拜訪！」兩側攤商的手都能握到，另一好處是迅速掃完街，降低對攤商生意及交通的衝擊。

  儘管不少人「愛屋及烏」，從支持洪佳君到挺黃志雄，洪佳君說，夫妻一體，她也更隨時警惕自己，一定要做好，因為做錯任何事，都會波及另一半的選情。

  洪佳君也說，二人同是體育國手出身，分別進入立法院及市議會的教育委員會，業務同質性高，當民眾陳情時，服務處能同時和中央、地方相關機關連繫，提升辦事效率，「這算是我們一起擔任民代的優勢吧！」（蘇瑋璇）

    　捍衛藍營席次全家總動員

  面對民進黨候選人姚文智矢言奪下台北市第一席立委，國民黨現任立委周守訓在第二選區「寸土必爭」，主播妻子汪用和擔任丈夫分身，以親和力為丈夫爭取更多選票。

  台視主播出身的汪用和親和力十足，除了菜市場拜票以外，她在社區拜也很受歡迎，家戶拜訪多由她擔綱。幕僚表示，由於該選區範圍相當廣，周守訓平時靠妻子擔任分身參加婚喪喜慶，選前任務更加繁重，從晨運、站路口、掃街到爬樓梯，甚至當周守訓在外拜票或在立院開會，汪用和也會代替出席競選團隊會議，夫妻兩人分進合擊，尤其汪用和口條及邏輯思考都不錯，與選民互動顯得更加親切。

  不過，汪用和在深綠地盤也有受挫的難忘經驗，她有一次在掃街拜訪時，她伸手要和一位七十多歲的老伯握手，結果對方朝她的手上吐口水，讓她非常錯愕，回家跟周守訓講這件事，周守訓問她對方是不是一位老先生後，她才知道其實周守訓早在她之前，就被同一個人以不理性的方式對待過：周守訓要發傳單給這位老伯時，對方將傳單揉成一團丟回周守訓身上。

  不過，汪用和認為競選過程有甘有苦，遇到支持者給予溫暖，會十分感動。

  周守訓指出，他是國民黨「刺客鼻祖」，投入深綠地盤獲勝，但這個選區也是全台北市最大的，連陽明山頂都是他的選區，他和家人都分開拜票，儘量讓選區的每一位選民都可以看到他或是他的分身。

  目前他每天都要參與各種社區、里長、社團及公益團體活動，至今已瘦了七公斤，雖然辛苦但一定會贏得最後勝利。

本文轉引自中國時報

http://news.chinatimes.com/politics/50206759/112011120600292.html

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has repeatedly stated that Taiwan’s economic development cannot be separated from that of China, while criticizing the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for what he describes as closed economic policies and telling the public how he has improved the situation.

Indeed, no country can ignore the scale of China’s market and its economic development in recent years. However, it is extremely naive to suggest that China is some kind of panacea — the answer to all of Taiwan’s economic problems. To do so would be to disregard a whole raft of problems.

First, as an economic entity, China is not a completely deregulated market. Politics plays a significant role in its economic development. Taiwanese businesses investing in China lack comprehensive legal guarantees, and there are many cases of corrupt local governments with their fingers in the cookie jar. Indeed, an increasing number of these companies are returning to Taiwan, complaining about their treatment by undesirable elements in China, or even by the government. This evidently is a serious problem.

Second, China has access to a prodigious labor pool and follows its own model of industrial development. For the short term at least, Taiwanese products enjoy an advantage in the Chinese market. However, if Taiwan fails to upgrade and improve its own manufacturing industries and continues to rely on low-tech and original equipment manufacturing (OEM), China will very soon be able to manufacture these same products at a lower cost.

It will become progressively difficult to sustain Taiwan’s traditional manufacturing industries solely by relying on the Chinese market. This is especially true given Beijing’s current development model, which entails absorbing Taiwan’s technology and using it in its own factories. For an example of this, look at what’s happening in the agricultural industry.

Third, China is making all kinds of concessions and opening up trade with Taiwan, but all these are predicated on political considerations. In other words, China has consistently and clearly placed politics over economics. Not only has it maintained that the “one China” principle is to inform all trade exchanges with Taiwan, it is furthering its goal of unification by making Taiwan increasingly economically dependent. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that politics and economics can be kept separate when dealing with China has erred in their understanding of the very basis of China’s cross-strait policy and the timetable it has set for achieving its goal.

As far as China is concerned — and perhaps for any other country too — economic development, while important, is no substitute for politics. The idea that one can avoid or dissipate political disputes through trade exchanges alone has never been borne out historically. When engaging in economic and trade exchanges with China, then, not only does Taiwan need to be careful about ensuring sustainable economic development, it also needs to consider the concomitant political implications.

Lo Chih-cheng is chief executive of the Taiwan Brain Trust.

Translated by Paul Cooper

This article is from Taipei Times

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/12/03/2003519798

On Nov. 18, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government made a sudden about-turn with regard to retired farmers’ monthly allowances by announcing that the subsidy would be raised to NT$1,000 (US$33), instead of the NT$316 originally planned. This abrupt change suggests that the government’s decisionmaking process went astray. Ma initially said that the figure of NT$316 was arrived at by establishing a system for periodic adjustments to the subsidy, but then a backlash from farmers and an overwhelming tide of pressure from the political opposition prompted him to “seek further advice” from legislators-at-large nominated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The result was that, following further “research,” the same advisers who came up with the figure of NT$316 changed their minds and concluded that NT$1,000 was the right amount for the pension hike.

Let us set aside the question of how much of an increase in the farmers’ pension would be reasonable and just consider the way the head of state and his advisers make policy decisions. If a policy reversal like this was not made with a view to the Jan. 14 presidential and legislative elections, then it must have been because the departments responsible for giving policy advice failed to research the issue thoroughly. No matter what the motive, the public’s faith in the government’s competence has definitely been damaged, as has the president’s authority and legitimacy.

What most people would like to see are policies proposed after research and discussion, rather than put forward seemingly just to test the water and suddenly changed whenever the going gets tough.

On another level, the government’s apparent capriciousness is an indication that ministers in the Ma Cabinet are failing to stand up for their views in their respective areas of expertise.

Instead, they do whatever Ma says, whether to conform with his ideological view of the world or out of electoral calculation. Holding on to their Cabinet posts is the priority, it seems.

In political science, it is often said that democracy is the politics of responsibility. Government officials are supposed to take responsibility for the policies they come up with. If Cabinet ministers’ policy proposals keep getting shot down by elected representatives or the top leadership, then as responsible officials they should stick to their political ideals. In other words, they should either try to convince the public or resign as a matter of principle.

Take the case of former German president Horst Koehler: In Germany, the office of president is largely ceremonial and carries few real powers. Nevertheless, when Koehler’s statements regarding the Bundeswehr, or Federal Defense Force, drew a torrent of public criticism, he resigned on the grounds that he had weakened public faith in the office of the president. Koehler’s case is an example of how any government policy or statement can have far-reaching influence. When a government’s policies keep changing, it is confusing to the public and, in the long run, it serves only to undermine the government’s legitimacy.

In Taiwan, however, Cabinet ministers say whatever they want. They think nothing of changing policies from one day to the next, with little apparent consideration for the damage such uncertainty does to the government’s prestige. They are the ones in charge, so they don’t give a hoot about what the public thinks about them. After all, Ma is the one who has set a bad example by chopping and changing government policy.

The man at the top sets the ball rolling, so what else can we expect from his political appointees?

Lo Chih-cheng is chief executive of the Taiwan Brain Trust.

Translated by Julian Clegg

the article origin from Taipei Times

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/11/27/2003519306/1