與網友辯論台灣議題

william.c

Murray(41)
>>Are they capable? Are they corrupt? An authoritarian government in a developing country can sustain itself if it is able and uncorrupted<<

Murray，對不起我知你是一位博士(？)，才用學術風格和你談論這個問題。說實在，Chinese leadership假如僅指胡温，不是中國問題核心。「Are they capable? Are they corrupt?」也是世俗眼光，毛澤東一介不取，何嘗不會禍國？但既然你関注個人，我就我有限的見識，說說。

●胡錦濤、温家寶應是不贪污及有能力的中國领導人。
但：
●現今中國领導人己不是毛周鄧那一輩人的能量，現今是集體領導。假如陳水扁的獨裁指數是80，胡錦濤僅是45，温家寶则是25。中共半專制指的是制度，

william.c

Murray(#41)
>>Well well well. I only vehemently oppose the return of Taiwan to Japanese (since America never owned Taiwan, returning Taiwan to the U.S. is a none issue)<<

喔，對不起，說錯murray的統獨立場，(我非英語用者，沒有全看murray所有贴文)，Btw，「oppose the return of Taiwan to Japanese」對我來說，倒是新鲜事兒，我未動過「台灣歸還給日本」的想法，也沒有「台灣歸還給美國」的想法。

沒事啦，我們這一輩，會繼續看到台灣偏安(獨台)，能看到變化的是「陰乾」程度(廣東話，偈後語：神台桔)，能否奮旺，看馬英九。

william.c

Murray(#41)
>>In my not-so-humble opinion, the issue about Taiwan's future boiled down to thisoes Taiwanese have a right for elf-determination? Or should Taiwan's future be decided by all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan strait.I favor the first proposition. As for the second 'proposition', I would add this question also: Are Mainland Chinese enjoying their rights for self-determination in China right now?<<

●這是老問題了，根據國際規则，台灣有自治權，沒有自決權(我寫過四次)。如根據武力，就看老美。

●「decided by all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan strait. 」，法律上，PRC是代表全中國人民，這不是要點。事實上，中共是叫兩岸政府談，只要台灣承認一中。現實是中美台三方政府(代表人民)在角力----達致一種局面。老美是最大頭，說什麽兩岸人民。台灣政府是小頭，現今卻做著大頭的事。

>>Are Mainland Chinese enjoying their rights for self-determination in China right now?<<

●這是一個哲學問題，因為統計學上做不到的。
Btw，determinate for what？self-determination多 refer to獨立，中國已獨立，murray說啥？假如說推翻中央政府，由於中國未到革命的時刻，尚未有全民意志(革命)的表達的局面。如說平時，沒有代議制及普選，只能透過共產黨組織(7千萬黨员間接洞悉民意。至於說enjoying their rights，是吃中國人民的豆腐了。

william.c

(From Murray)

>>毛澤東一介不取，何嘗不會禍國？但既然你関注個人，我就我有限的見識，說說。

William:
You are speaking of the past with hindsight. I am trying to predict the future with foresight. '一介不取', well, this is exactly why Mao could lanuch Cultural revolution so successfully against Liu. Corruption is what unites all the anti establishment forces. It's true in Taiwan. It will be true in the China too. Should the Communist fall, it will be due to corruption one kind or the other. Conversely, the communist survive the 1958-61 famine intact because it wasn't corrupted.
I have to go in a few minutes...

william.c

《對贪污的辯証思維》

有點越說越散了。

中國貪污問題十分嚴重，成為影响國運的因素，是老問題。Murray提出中國領導人贪不贪污？有沒有能力治國？我回應說，中國領導人個人贪不贪污，不是問題癥結，中國整個制度上有贪腐的誘因及現像，才值得研究。是印度式？南美式？抑或印尼菲律賓台灣式？

中國領導人個人贪污己納入中國整個制度上贪腐的內容中。然而，中國一級領導人尤其是胡温，是不贪的----但中央有太子黨，八九十年代尤其猖厥，即是將特權世俗化，資本主義化。

我的意思是，胡温贪不贪污，不足以說明問題。胡温不贪，只是道德樹立，不足以彌補中國整個制度上贪腐的禍害，中國的走向也不是基於胡温貪不贪。

william.c

說起來奇怪，中國傳統，皇帝是不用贪污的(如馬可仕)。普天之下莫非王土，不用贪，它的形式叫特權。而禍國與特權及贪污無必然關係，崇禎節檢勤奮，老毛一介不取，卻禍國至深。Murray卻突然扯去：「You are speaking of the past with hindsight. I am trying to predict the future with foresight. 」，說我後顧無益，他则前瞻有理，是有點離題了。探究胡温貪不貪，大概猜不出中國的未來。

>>一介不取', well, this is exactly why Mao could lanuch Cultural revolution so successfully against Liu….. Conversely, the communist survive the 1958-61 famine intact because it wasn't corrupted.<<

更是離題萬丈，扯去爪哇國。我算是半個文革專家，有關毛澤東的書，讀過超過百本。對不起，上述有點沒話找話說。我以為，贪污是社會問題，毛劉權鬥是政治問題。當然，贪污的社會屬性也是構成政治問題的一部份。在1950年至1976年，中國處於高度政治化，社會服從政治，尤如今天的台灣。當時，中國整個社會沒有贪污現像---但特權跟贪污有什麼分別？(贪污比特權禍害更大，這裡是大體而言)

william.c

沒有人想過老毛會貪不贪污，當然也沒有人認為老毛有力量鬥倒劉少奇，是由於他清亷，這是一個笑話。老毛當時持有的是政治權烕，不只是道德權威。同時，共產黨人的道德是另外一種標準(老毛荒淫好色，誰說過話來了)。更同時，開國皇帝是不需要一般世俗道德加持的。我前贴意思是說，我寧可毛澤東學馬可仕般贪污，也不想他「為人民服務」地害死幾千萬人。這是對贪污的辯証思維。

三年大飢荒，人民不起義，共產黨不倒台，主因當然也不是共產政府清簾(是共產政府仍有掌控力，民間沒有絲毫反政府的组織能力)，但我承認Murray小部份是說對的。當時的共產政府有高度的社會道德表現，套句俗說，政府仍有愛心(但有惡行)。即沒有人懷疑政府不是为人民的，直至现在仍是(但有惡行)。政府不過只是好心做壞事而已，現今的扁政府反而有點壞心做壞事了。中國人民通常是温顺的，不被迫至绝路，政府不存心使壞，是不會起來推翻政府的。

william.c

(From Murray)

>>Murray，對不起我知你是一位博士(？)，才用學術風格和你談論這個問題。

Thank God. For the first time for many years, I felt safe hiding under a feather hat!

{{>>An authoritarian government in a developing country can sustain itself if it is able and uncorrupted<<

這句話一字之淺，沒甚微言大義。有能力及清亷當然增進其政權的「掌控力」或統治權威。(對不起，不是增進其政權的「正當性」)。殘酷的現實是，就算一個無能贪污的政府，也不會失去其政權的「掌控力」或統治權威，扁政府是一例，僅失去尊嚴。
Murray儘在說應然，我在說實然。}}

William:
I am not trying to impress anyone with fancy words here. The principle is indeed simple: corruption is what leads to the downfall of a regime. And that includes Richard Nixon.
"扁政府是一例，僅失去尊嚴"
First of all, Taiwan is not under authoritarian rule anymore...
Is 尊嚴 the only thing Abian lost? I don't think so. I think Abian has already lost his 掌控力 because of the corruption of his government. 掌控力 is not measured by what he declared and undeclared in public. 掌控力 can best be measured during the crisis. I don't think anyone in the armed force is willing to fight and die for Abian's declaration. In that sense, Abian has lost his 掌控力.

{{>>I have confidence in China. I do not have confidence in PRC.<<
在香港，這叫留中疑情。其實是有問題的，你怎可以將中共政權和中國分割呢？}}

留中疑情, what an interesting word! I think 留中疑共 would fit me just well!
The distinction between 中 & 共 is quite clear to me actually. My affinity is to the people and the heritage of that people, but not to a regime, or the regime. PRC may be the best solution for the Chinese people at this moment. But it definitely will not stand up against the force of democracy. And this has nothing to do with Taiwan being independent or not.

william.c

(From Murray)

William:
One reason that Lee TH was still able to commanded considerable influence in Taiwan despite all his shortcomings is that there's no concrete evidence that he has 贪污. At least they're not exposed yet. His reputation will be tarnished when such evidence are exposed.

>>但特權跟贪污有什麼分別？(贪污比特權禍害更大，這裡是大體而言)
They are fundamentally different, I think. What we consider as 特權, even at the every expense of the people, is accepted by the people in socialist society. On the other hand, 贪污 is hated by everyone, including thiefs in the 'private' sector.

william.c

一路散下去，姑且見題論題。

Murray48)
>>"扁政府是一例，僅失去尊嚴"
First of all, Taiwan is not under authoritarian rule anymore...
Is 尊嚴 the only thing Abian lost? I don't think so. I think Abian has already lost his 掌控力 because of the corruption of his government. 掌控力 is not measured by what he declared and undeclared in public. 掌控力 can best be measured during the crisis. I don't think anyone in the armed force is willing to fight and die for Abian's declaration. In that sense, Abian has lost his 掌控力.<<

這一題目是「扁政府由於貪污遂而失去尊嚴還是失去掌控力？」我的答案是，僅失去尊嚴，未失去掌控力。

●政府的掌控力是有具體定義的。最基本的定義是，政府法令無礙。無論我們怎樣反對陳水扁，都不能說扁政府對台灣地區失去了控制，不然共軍早打過來了。

Murray說的掌控力，大概指以總統地位來說的政治權威力量(非威權)。政治權威力量是比較非具體的。甚至乎，陳水扁這方面也很強硬，從終统一役將在野黨打下去；四大天王無不俯首稱臣；原本從破鴨降為烤鴨，現在倒四處放火，連老共都敲了，可見一班。陳水扁失什麽掌控力？

william.c

●固然，Abian沒有 has already lost his 掌控力，所以理由更不是「because of the corruption of his government」。Murray評價台灣局面可能用另外一種標準。Murray所提的情况是馬可仕或南美式的，現在菲律賓小個子女總統也在這個關口上。台灣現在是菲律賓嗎？

Btw，中國民众應付不了貪污政府，由可說，號稱民主地區的台灣應付不了貪污的扁政府，是一種恥辱，這是另話。

Murray說出了政府掌控力的標準：「掌控力 is not measured by what he declared and undeclared in public. 掌控力 can best be measured during the crisis.」

●Murray或者有他的標準見解，但我不同意這種標準見解。就以面對危機而言，扁政府對美國捧喝的危機，撑過去了。至於罷免案，更是嗤之以鼻，一付智珠在握的姿態。扁政府暫時沒有失去掌控力的事實。

william.c

●>>I don't think anyone in the armed force is willing to fight and die for Abian's declaration. In that sense, Abian has lost his 掌控力.<<

這是一個假設性問題，怎能由此断定扁政府對「國家」失去掌控力？

●扁政府以及陳水扁本人失去被人尊敬以及客觀地去了尊嚴(因為他們自己認為沒有)，則是實在的事，看報紙每天駡就知道，我猜己經破了健力士大全，我本人就駡了近百篇。

後補：
或者我看漏了Murray的一個意思：Murray的掌控力是和威權authoritarian掛勾而成的-----台灣不是威權時代，所以陳水扁掌控力弱。是這個意思嗎？

我認為，威權authoritarian亦非具體性，然而，就以陳水扁目前的獨行獨斷來說，他己達到威權的地位，但卻沒有權威。他是一個在一片公開駡聲中的強人(注意：是公開)。有威權卻沒權威(威權是主觀操弄，權威则是人們認受的)，被人民公開唾駡，卻强悍不倒。這是一個非常難得的論文題材，有關學子不要錯過。

william.c

Murray: (48)
>>留中疑情, what an interesting word! I think 留中疑共 would fit me just well!The distinction between 中 & 共 is quite clear to me actually. My affinity is to the people and the heritage of that people, but not to a regime, or the regime. PRC may be the best solution for the Chinese people at this moment. But it definitely will not stand up against the force of democracy. And this has nothing to do with Taiwan being independent or not.<<

喔，Murray可能搞錯了，是「保留中帶有疑惑」。我尊重Murray「留中疑共」的看法，我暫無意討論這個，因為這是Murray的應然，我討論的基礎是實然。我討論的議題是「你怎能把中國和共產政府或共產黨從中國分割出去？」

>>But it definitely will not stand up against the force of democracy.<<
願然思維。

>>And this has nothing to do with Taiwan being independent or not.<<
同意。

william.c

Murray: (49)
>>One reason that Lee TH was still able to commanded considerable influence in Taiwan despite all his shortcomings is that there's no concrete evidence that he has 贪污. At least they're not exposed yet. His reputation will be tarnished when such evidence are exposed.<<

Murray說的是社會常理，我指出的是台灣也是個高度政治化社會，社會服從政治。尤如新中國時沒有人會質疑老毛贪不貪污一樣。珼今，李登輝的台獨教主的需要大於道德整頓的需要，陪葬的是法治。

行文至此，我發覺Murray贴文的著眼點似是人性多一點，似是以自己感受出發多一點。我著眼點則是政治，則是殘酷的現實。我甚至夠胆預言，2008年之後，「馬英九總统」不敢抓「台獨新教主」陳水扁的貪污案。

>>His reputation will be tarnished when such evidence are exposed.<<

未必啊！証據算啥？又怎樣揭發？Murray的reputation是以人性出發。在政治狂熱中，李登輝的罪行算是什麼？再看一個例子，毛澤東早己遺臭萬年，他的圖像仍掛在天安門上。這是政治啊！

william.c

Murray49)
>>但特權跟贪污有什麼分別？(贪污比特權禍害更大，這裡是大體而言)
>>They are fundamentally different, I think. What we consider as 特權, even at the every expense of the people, is accepted by the people in socialist society. On the other hand, 贪污 is hated by everyone, including thiefs in the 'private' sector.<<

大體上同意murray的說法，贪污和特權有本質上的不同，而所有國家所有地區都有特權。

我前贴意思是：毛澤東己經是皇帝不用贪污。曲線指出新中國共產政府「清亷」和非貪污的關係，不能用現今贪污的本質量度新中國時的特權社會的「清亷性」。

我說老毛一介不取，是pin point：照樣禍國。不是pin point老毛「清亷」。毛始皇不存在清亷不清亷的問題，我寧願他是馬可仕，人民可趕他下台。

我和murray談的可能是不同track的事。