投稿後的一點心得

週五，有位朋友MSN給我，說在自由時報看到我的投稿。

我聽了有些摸不著頭緒，他傳了連結給我，的確是我的文章沒錯，但問題來了，我並沒有投稿給自由時報啊。

我不投自由時報的原因只有一個：它的立場太鮮明，文章放在那邊很容易被政治化。

我當下立刻聯繫自由時報，詢問原因。

自由時報的編輯回覆我說，有人將這篇文章寄給他們論壇，他們覺得不錯，所以就採用了。

經過協商後，他們同意發出一個道歉啟事刊登在報上，並將該文從網站上拿下。

UN For Taiwan的問題 Part III

東吳英文系的曾泰元教授投了一篇文章去蘋果日報，論述政府這句「UN for Taiwan」「文法錯誤 只好硬拗」。原文在這裡。

曾先生提到：

「UN for Taiwan
原本要力推台灣加入聯合國，反而成了「聯合國送給台灣」，文法錯誤，語意錯置；失之毫釐，謬以千里，成了國際上的笑柄。正確的說法 UN Membership for
Taiwan，究竟是哪位「高人」授意，拿掉了關鍵的
Membership？當然，標語力求簡短響亮，可是連所訴求的對象──不諳中文的外籍人士──都跳出來講他看不懂時，我們自己人關起門來努力推敲解讀，有什麼意義？」

他的看法我尊重，不予置評，唯一我覺得這位曾先生在專業上相當名不副實的地方，就是這句「成了國際笑柄」。

國內英文標示/路標可以成為國際笑柄的地方真的很多，但UN for Taiwan我實在看不出哪裡會成為國際笑柄。如同前一篇提到的，這句話究竟是不是有問題，咱們就拿到國際上來瞧瞧如何？我將議題拿去alt.english.usage這個探討英文用法的論壇來看看國際上英文母語人士看法。

請注意，這個論壇不在台灣境內，一般話題也不可能探討到台灣的政治，因此我們可視為是一個相當中立的討論區。

我的問題提出後，我舉兩方意見為例：

認為怪怪的：

「I would be hard pressed to say that it was outright "wrong" in any
formal, grammatical manner. But it is unidiomatic -- a native English speaker would never
say it that way. 」

↑雖然覺得不順，但文法上並不至於有什麼錯誤。


認為沒問題的：

「It's a slogan. Slogans are exempt from the rules of grammar. They
are constructed to be catchy, printable on signs and tee shirts,
easily recognizable, and distinctive. There is no value of "good" or
"bad" in reference to proper English for slogans. 」

↑ 這就是標語口號，沒人會管文法問題，討論英文正不正確毫無意義。

有位發言者看來似乎深暗群眾運動精華，他提到：

「A group that supports something, or supports a movement against
something, establishes a slogan and that slogan is associated with
their position. With enough people shouting and waving signs, the
information on the sign is relatively unimportant. The sign could
read "UN + Taiwan" or "UN NOW" and the meaning would be established by the actions of the group. 」

意思就是，一群人出來遊行，他們得喊口號，得舉標語，因此標語盡量簡化，幾個關鍵字，能寫得大大的，加上群眾站在那裡，整個訴求就會變得非常清楚，記者來相機一拍，還有誰看不懂？

他還建議可舉牌的標語包括「UN + Taiwan」或 「UN NOW」。

這位老兄語不驚人死不休，他還說，若這個標語還帶有「反美」性質，還可在字母上加上幾滴血流下來、舉個消遣布希漫畫肖像云云，越聳動越好。

有位老美網友還說，他有從他同事那裡拿到一件「UN for Taiwan」的上衣。由於有另位網友提到台灣不是國家，加不加入有何差異？這位拿到T-shirt的老美還替台灣的立場說了一番話。

我的議題丟出後，總共有15個回應訊息，沒有任何人覺得這句話錯得離譜或會貽笑大方，僅有兩三人說第一次看會覺得有點混淆，若改成「Taiwan in the UN」或許比較明瞭，但另有他人則認為改成這樣也很混淆。

基本上我認為，台灣這次把這個活動推到美國本土，看來是有許多老美看到，也注意到這個議題，他們能理解這個口號後面所代表的訴求。

整個情況應該是相當清楚的了。你或許可以不贊同入聯的議題，或不爽執政黨搞這個活動，但就這句話的正確性來看，的確是無庸置疑的。

曾教授說會貽笑國際，我只能說，十分以偏蓋全。(完)

Un for Taiwan是不是菜英文 Part II 陰謀篇

這件事情，基本上我覺得有點政治炒作，而這位陶老師有點被抬出來犧牲了。



我昨天看到報紙在報導這件事時，馬上就去這位陶維極老師的網站看，他的留言版有一則有趣的留言：




我昨天一時沒看懂，什麼叫做「必須選在入前路跑前召開記者會，時間有點緊急」云云。今天翻報紙才知道，原來10/24日起有個入聯的全台活動，這想必是DPP辦的。

如此意思就很明顯囉，藍營有人希望把「UN for Taiwan」搞難看一點，那麼民眾對這個活動的參與就大為降低，尤其有老外來開講，更有說服力。

也因此昨天才會幾乎所有媒體都有這則菜英文的報導啦。

但撇開這個政治因素，我主要的重點還是在於這個口號是否真的會讓外國人看不懂？

下一篇我會貼一些外國網友的反應來看看。但以下先轉貼聯合報今天有篇文章，找來幾位國內英文學者談論這個問題，意見相當中肯：


UN for TAIWAN 專家看文法

【聯合報╱記者薛荷玉／台北報導】 2007.10.17 03:38 am


入聯標語「UN for TAIWAN」的英文文法是不是有問題？靜宜大學外語學院院長謝國平指出，這樣的文法不算錯，但因為for有不同的解釋，如果是完全不了解台灣入聯議題的外國人，乍看之下可能無法馬上了解它的涵義。

謝國平說，相對於「反對」常用against這個介系詞，相反地，for就有「贊同」的意思，還是可以猜到「UN for TAIWAN」的大概意思，但並未直接表達出台灣要入聯的訴求。

一般句子用到for時，指的多半不是贊同，而是「為」、「給」的意思，謝國平舉例說I bought a present for you，就是買一件禮物「給」你的意思。

世新大學英語系教授李振清則指出，標語通常只有三、四個字，因此，並不要求一定要有主詞、動詞、受詞，只要能了解涵義，沒有什麼文法的問題，「UN for TAIWAN」感覺上不見得很貼切，但可以接受，「應該有80分吧。」

那有什麼更好的標語嗎？李振清說，如果要比較準確，可以用TAIWAN deserves UN，這裡的UN，指的是UN membership，也就是說，台灣值得、理應成為聯合國的會員，或用TAIWAN need UN，但念起來可能不如「UN for TAIWAN」響亮。

再談 UN for TAIWAN 是不是菜英文 Part I

政府在私人信件上蓋上支持入聯字眼的確不妥，應立即停止，但「UN for Taiwan」是否是另一個貽笑大方的台式菜英文呢？絕非如此。

簡單的說，「UN for Taiwan」只是一句廣告台詞，一句口號，就像報紙的新聞標題一樣，不需受到太多的文法拘束。

比方說，打開紐約時報，或上它的網站讀新聞，任何一個只有國中程度的中學生都可以在它標題中找到各式各樣的文法錯誤，很多非關重點的連接詞或介系詞都被省略了，不是冠詞不見了，就是單數名詞前面沒有加「a」。但沒人會說這樣的英文有錯誤，因為那就是新聞標題，為了縮短字數，提綱挈領而採取的作法。

貴報提及，UN前面要加The，那其實才真的有點菜。簡單的作個測試，您可在紐約時報網站輸入「UN」（聯合國縮寫），它出現的標題，絕沒有一個會加入The這樣的字眼，那是多餘的啊。

同樣地，「UN for Taiwan」畢竟只是一句口號，一個要喊起來順口又有力的廣告點子而已，它既傳達到入聯的意思，但又不至於吊書袋般的拗口。

在Web 2.0時代，是否菜英文，不妨看看網路上部落客的反應就知分曉。上Google查詢了一下英文部落格，許多居住在台灣的外國部落客先前曾參加在國內舉行的支持台灣加入聯合國在高雄的遊行，他們在文內也都使用「UN for Taiwan」，沒人覺得有什麼不妥。

我詢問了其中幾位外國人作者的意見，他們普遍並不認為這句口號需更動。相反地，他們還覺得這句話剛好有押韻，且三個單字又很短，是個相當好的點子。

有個部落客還特別舉例說，這就如同有人問你想上哪所學校，你回答「It's Harvard for me.」一樣，意思就是我想上哈佛，沒有人會誤會你的意思的。

我不死心，上了國外專門討論英文正確用法的網路論壇，詢問以英文為母語人士的網友意見。

基本上，大家對這句口號的優劣各有意見，但沒人認為這句話有什麼文法問題，或者英文太菜的問題。更令人驚奇的，許多人竟然都還知道台灣目前要求加入聯合國的訴求，並能夠侃侃而談台灣是否能夠加入聯合國的問題。我不得不嘖嘖稱奇，這個「UN for Taiwan」在全球範疇裡或許真的有達成實際的宣傳效應。

因此，若只是一位部落格作者在「文法」上吹毛求疵，那其實是小題大作，也有點見樹不見林的味道。而貴報媒體引用台灣師大教授指出應該改成「Taiwan Joins UN.」，這句口號或許文法十分正確，但我敢說，就口號的簡潔有力與傳遞效應上，它實在遜色太多了。

M型社會下之媽媽自己教英文（1）

自己在家跟小孩有點英文互動是件很容易的事，只要父母親有一點小小基礎，小孩可能根本不必花大錢去補英文，或者上私立雙語幼稚園，也不必擔心國小的英文課是否不夠的問題，就可輕輕鬆鬆學到非常好的英文能力。


--------------------------------

女兒念的國小學校家長會會長這次由一位很幹練的女性執業律師當選，她常有一些想法要求學校落實執行。

比如這次談到英文課程好了。

「小一每星期只有一堂英文課？太少了。」

「小三前只要學完26個英文字母？不行，應該要求老師每週至少教幾句英文，然後全部老師都應該常跟學生講這些英文。」

她霹哩啪啦數落了一頓學校的英文課程安排太差。

校方代表教務主任看起來被嚇到了，他站起來小心翼翼的辯護：「其實我們學校在台北縣的英文教學考察中都是名列前茅，向來都在前五名之內，算是很棒的。」

「前五名就很好嗎？你能跟台北市比嗎？若你去台北市會變成第幾名？」女律師家長會長立即反駁，很像在法庭上質詢證人一般。

另一位家長也站起來說，「我有認識摩門教的外國傳教士，我可請他們來學校指導...」

「教育部有規定，有宗教色彩的不能到學校喔...」教務主任又說了。

可憐的教務主任跟列席的學校老師...我心裡想著，老師跟學校的專業竟然這麼不受重視，幾個自以為是的家長給了各種英文教學意見，你一言，我一句。學校又不敢得罪這些有勢力的家長，只能很窩囊的捍衛自己的教學立場是依據教育部規定。

我猜，許多家長都得了英文恐慌症吧。

這種恐慌症從我女兒上幼稚園起我就開始感受到了。

這是一所私立雙語幼稚園，學費頗貴，家長為了小孩的將來，什麼錢都敢砸下去，尤其英文啦。

幼稚園畢業後，一部份學生選擇去上另一所私立雙語國小，強調每一般都配有一位外籍英文老師。

我決定讓我的女兒讀一般公立國小就好了。原因很簡單，若只是因雙語而多出那麼多學費，我一點都不覺得有必要，這些東西在家裡，父母親每天只要撥出幾分鐘時間，就可作得很好了。

我實驗過，所以我知道。

幼稚園時，女兒從學校回來，有時會唸老師教的英文給我們聽。有些我會幫她矯正一下發音，或者語法，或者課本有怪怪的地方。

但這有點吃力，因為女兒會比較相信他在學校聽到的。

「老師就是這樣說啊...」她每次都會這樣抗議。我想老師一定不是這樣說的啦，只是有些細節，老師沒去糾正，學生自然也不知道。

我每次都要多方鼓勵她，「好啊，不然你明天回去問老師，你應該是聽錯啦；若老師說你對，我就給你一個神秘禮物，這樣好不好。」

可惜她每次回來都沒得到這個神秘禮物。幾次下來後，我要矯正她的時候，她才比較容易接受。（未完，待續）

台灣加入聯合國 台式英文上陣

辜寬敏在美國買下大幅廣告版面，鼓吹國際必須讓台灣加入聯合國，全文我附在文末，請參考。

辜老用意很好，只是原文寫得很長，若實際列印需要5張A4的紙。老實說，若不是很有心想看，大概看到前幾段就想放棄了。好幾位老美部落客看了都搖頭，覺得太「台」式了。不是英文台，而是寫法太台。

光看第一段，開頭寫著：「約有七、八成美國人知道台灣是國家」...這句話就頗讓人起疑，老美地理向來不好，他們連伊拉克都不見得能在Google Earth上指得出來，更何況遠在天邊的台灣呢？

另一個大問題是文章形式。感覺辜老是想以感性的方式來感動老美，但其中許多地方又牽扯出許多過去老舊歷史，一般美國民眾不見得有興趣瞭解，且足足以「散文形式」寫了五頁A4，誰會看得完呢？

你看紐約時報的文章，一般長一點的，大概也是兩、三頁A4紙就差不多了，且這還是美國本地記者寫的文章，內容跟美國本地民眾息息相關的。

現在一個老外來刊登文章，寫得跟八股文一樣長，還給你一個「a long long time ago...」，看幾段實在不知所云...有誰那麼有閒空去慢慢瞭解辜老想說的議題？

再者，辜老又極力攻擊美國政府姑息中國云云，感覺是打錯人了。你好歹針對中國就算了，幹嘛拼命罵美國不幫忙？畢竟國際之間還是有許多現實利益，哪可能非黑即白？

同時間，美國前總統候選人Bob Dole則在華爾街日報投書一篇，要求布希政府支持台灣加入聯合國，這篇在blog圈的反應就比較好，感覺高明許多。一方面這是美國人自己寫的，比較知道老美的口味，一方面文章在論理方面能提出實際數據，以中性態度來說服讀者，而非「牽拖」五四三一堆老故事。

Bob Dole的原文我也附在文末，有興趣者可參考。

台灣最近這一連入聯反聯活動，我看得有些頭昏腦脹，國內媒體基本上各擁其主，很少人說得出一個所以然，連我比較信服的蘋果日報社論都寫得其差無比，看到布希發怒就嚇得要死。

但這兩天看了國際媒體，以及一些老外部落格的反應，這個議題已經有相當程度在國際間發酵開來了。

看來，不管是哪一種公投，反聯也好，入聯也好，這個議題，都非得過關不可了。

------------------------------------

Don’t Put Taiwan’s Democracy and Freedom back into a Box

Koo Kwang-ming 辜寬敏

"A long, long time ago…" are the words that many of the old stories begin with. Today, I would like to share with you a true story about Taiwan that the US and the world have deliberately ignored for a long, long time. I believe that maybe 70 percent to 80 percent of the US public knows that Taiwan is a country. At the same time, however, maybe only 1 percent of Americans know that Taiwan is not a member of the UN, and maybe only 0.001 percent know why this is so.

The truth I want to tell you about is this: our country, Taiwan, has been isolated by the UN in an act of political discrimination that has lasted for more than 36 years. It is the only country in the world to be denied UN membership. The human rights of 23 million Taiwanese have been ignored by the UN for a long, long time, and the US government has helped making it the case.

Just as Ralph Ellison said that African Americans once were the invisible man of American society, Taiwan is now the " invisible" member of the international community. What is worse is that omit to the democratic Taiwan has been living in the shadow of China’s constant threat. China has now deployed almost 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and is threatening annexation of Taiwan at any time.

Although China is a totalitarian and dictatorial communist state, the US unfortunately has sided with the Chinese dictatorship to suppress Taiwan’s democracy. This is both incomprehensible and deplorable. The US government called Iraq a terrorist state and stood up against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, but chooses to look at China's military expansion and intimidation with one eye closed. I must admonish the US government: "Washington’s appeasement of China resembles nothing but the British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler prior to the Second World War!"

If "Taiwan is not a state", the U.S. has the responsibility Dennis Wilder, the senior director of East Asian Affairs on the US' National Security Council, recently said that "Taiwan is not a state." This has outraged and humiliated the Taiwanese people. But we also felt a sense of relief when he added that Taiwan issue has been left undecided for a long long time. The U.S. government has finally decided to face a fact that it has turned a blind eye to for half a century. The truth is: Taiwan is a country with 23 million people, who can freely elect their own leaders. We have the capacities to exercise our sovereign powers both domestically and on the international front. The US government’s refusal to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state cannot challenge the reality that Taiwan has been a sovereign state

for decades.

Moreover, if Taiwan is not a sovereign state in the eyes of US government officials, I must ask if the US has no responsibility for this situation? The 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that concluded World War II did not clarify Taiwan's status, and for a long time after, the US approved Chiang Kai-shek's brutal military occupation of Taiwan which imposed 38 years of martial law that left Taiwanese in darkness and isolation.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, tens of thousands of Taiwanese sacrificed their lives and freedom in their struggle to overthrow the dictatorship and to gain democracy and liberty. That heavy price was paid not only for the cause of democracy and freedom, but also because we longed to establish a new and sovereign state as the unavoidable conclusion to centuries of colonial rule and struggle for independence. I think this is something the American people can understand and identify with.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What the Taiwanese people have been striving for the past decades is the realization of nothing but this famous and courageous statement in the United States Declaration of Independence. With the consolidation of democracy in Taiwan, we feel proud to say that we have gradually advanced our causes. We are still working hard toward our goal.

But when the Taiwanese people want to rely on a democratic referendum and self determination to confirm Taiwan's status as a sovereign state, the US government says, "You can't do that." When we want to hold a referendum to manifest the wish of all Taiwanese to join the United Nations, the US government says, "You can't do that." The US government encourages Taiwan to develop its democracy, but also warns us that we can't hold referendums or declare independence, all because of the fear of provoking Beijing. The US government is even opposed to Taiwan having its own constitution, own flag or own national anthem that are necessary for building a nation that can withstand Chinese pressure. Is this sensible? Is this the right message the US should be sending to Communist dictators?

Why democratic Taiwan can’t join the UN? At present, 77 percent of Taiwanese want Taiwan to join the UN and become a member of this family of nations. We therefore hope that the presidential election next year will include a referendum to allow every Taiwanese to use his or her vote to manifest their wish that Taiwan be allowed to join the UN and use the collective will of the Taiwanese people to tell the world that we are not happy with the current situation. This simple and humble democratic expression, however, is forcefully opposed and suppressed by the US government, and this causes disappointment and anger among the people of Taiwan who have placed high hopes on the US and its great people.

Taiwan and North Korea are both countries with about 23 million people. Taiwan’s economic and democratic achievements are something that North Korea cannot match. However, Washington, even without recognizing North Korea as a sovereign state, did not oppose Pyongyang’s UN bid in the 1990s. In comparison, the U.S. government’s treatment of democratic Taiwan is both disappointing and disturbing. Shouldn't the human rights of 23 million Taiwanese be respected? We know that the US opposition to Taiwan’s UN membership is a result of China’s bullying for military tension in the Taiwan Strait. However, if cooperating with China to suppress democratic Taiwan is the best solution that Washington authorities can come up with after 60 years, we must ask if US intellectual leadership on this matter is already a thing of the past.

As long as Taiwan is not a member of the UN, that organization will always suffer from a flaw in its conscience. As long as the US doesn't help Taiwan become a normal country and gain UN membership, it will always carry a stamp of shame.

It’s time for the US to reevaluate its policy on the Taiwan Strait. In 2003, I published a statement in this newspaper telling the US government it was time for a serious reevaluation of its China policy because it is absurd to see a country adhere to a flawed policy for three decades. The status quo in the Taiwan Strait today has changed completely from the status quo of 30 years ago. According to the latest Taiwanese opinion polls, 70 percent of Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese and 75 percent think that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state. The Shanghai communiqué of 1972 which states that, "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" was never true.

The US government must take a square look at this political reality lest it keep making mistakes in its Taiwan policy and make serious political misjudgments in the Asia Pacific region The US was completely powerless to stop the massive Chinese military buildup across the Taiwan Strait. But the US is not powerless if it chooses to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy and nation-building that are necessary for the Taiwanese to withstand Chinese pressure. The US can also tell the Chinese that their bullying of Taiwan is counterproductive, that the resultant resentment the Taiwanese feel toward the Chinese will only make the eventual reconciliation more difficult.

Taiwan shall overcome! For the past ten years, China has tried to strangle Taiwan with its military threats and diplomatic blockade. But in spite of their efforts, Taiwan has managed to survive. I want to tell the world that Taiwan still exists! This small and beautiful country still exists in the West Pacific. The mighty Taiwanese people will fight for our beloved country till the end! As God and the American people are our witnesses：We will not be defeated; Taiwan

shall overcome! The constant bullying by the Chinese to deny our identity only hardened our resolve to fight for independence and international recognition！

"You can’t put democracy and freedom back into a box," said President George W. Bush. For all these years, on our way to democratization, Taiwanese people have received enormous support and encouragement from our American friends. As democratic Taiwan requires the moral support of the international community when its people make a free decision on their future, I call on all great Americans and their representatives to tell the US government and the UN:

"Don’t put Taiwan’s democracy and freedom back into a box!"

"Help Taiwan join the UN!"

(The writer was a former senior adviser to the President of Taiwan ）

(The article was published in Washington Post and NY Times on September

17, 2007)

------------------------

COMMENTARY

Let Taiwan Join the U.N.

By BOB DOLE

September 17, 2007; Page A16

Tomorrow the United Nations will consider Taiwan's application for membership. It has formally sought admission every year since 1993, but this year's application is different.

First, the country is applying under its own name ("Taiwan") rather than its official appellation ("Republic of China"). Second, it is applying to the U.N. General Assembly, the organization's comprehensive body of member nations -- despite the rejection of its application this summer by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his legal office. Third, the application may be followed by a national referendum on whether Taiwan should apply for U.N. membership under its own name -- a plan that has elicited a sharp rebuke by the Bush administration.

The U.N.'s lawyers argued that, having transferred China's seat from Taipei to Beijing in 1971, the U.N. should reject Taiwan's latest application because Taiwan "for all intents and purposes" is "an integral part of the People's Republic of China." Taiwan presents a more compelling legal case: It meets all of the requirements of statehood under law.

It is already a full and productive member of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. It has never been a province or part of the local government of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan's recent transformation into a modern democratic state supersedes any decades-old determination that gives the PRC a United Nations seat -- even as the U.N. failed to determine that Taiwan is part of the PRC or bestow upon it the right to represent Taiwan.

Taiwan's political case for U.N. membership is equally strong. It is the 48th most populous country in the world. Its economy is the world's 16th largest. Its gross national product totals $366 billion, or $16,098 per capita. With $267 billion in foreign exchange reserves, it is one of the world's three largest creditor states. Taiwan is therefore poised to be a significant contributor to the U.N.'s operations and play a constructive role in the organization.

Unfortunately, the United States and the other major powers discourage Taiwan in its quest for de jure international recognition of its de facto sovereignty. This is because they do not want to raise the ire of the PRC, which, as a member of the U.N. Security Council, can block any significant U.N. action, and, as a global power, can interfere on a host of issues important to the U.S. and Europe.

Thanks to exponentially increased trade with the U.S. and Europe, Beijing feels less compelled than ever to seek political accommodation with Taiwan, or to decrease its military threat against the island nation. Expanding economic relationships may be good in and of itself, but predictions that this would produce political cracks in China's authoritarian regime have proved wrong.

Today, Beijing is using its newfound economic might to isolate Taiwan still further in international organizations and attempt to persuade the two dozen countries that recognize Taiwan diplomatically to switch their ties to China. Meanwhile, the people of the PRC enjoy fewer political rights and civil liberties than in all but a few of the world's countries.

A few short years ago, the U.S. seemed determined to change this. During his 2000 election campaign and the first months of his administration, President Bush and his team vowed to fashion a new foreign policy in which U.S. national interests, particularly in Asia, were advanced less exclusively through the prism of Beijing. In other words, the U.S. wanted to be less beholden to the communist regime.

One of the casualties of 9/11, and the subsequent war in Iraq, was that this policy agenda became less of a priority. Our cooperation with Pakistan in the effort to topple the Taliban, find Osama bin Laden and eradicate terrorism in the region meant that we focused less on developing a higher-tier relationship with India. We also concentrated less on drawing out Japan, by encouraging it to play a more active political and military role on the global stage. Equally important, we were unable to increase our promotion of democracy in the region by fostering closer ties with countries such as Taiwan and South Korea and escalating pressure on Beijing to reform.

The current U.S. administration still has time to correct this omission. Having been an advocate for Taiwan during my time in the Senate, and today as part of a law firm that represents Taiwan's interests in the U.S., I believe that President Bush should support Taiwan's application for U.N. membership. This should be quickly followed by active or tacit support for Taiwan's plans for a popular vote on this issue in March 2008. Our close Asian friend and ally needs and deserves this recognition and support, which would at the same time advance America's regional and global interest in promoting democratization.

Mr. Dole, a former Senate majority leader and the Republican candidate for

president in 1996, is special counsel to Alston & Bird.

龍應台文化基金會：Doreen Weisenhaus 演講有感

今天在龍應台文化基金會聽了一場有關新聞媒體是否太過沈淪的國際演說。

主講人有兩個，一位是曾經在紐約時報當過記者/編輯，現任香港大學教授的Doreen Weisenhaus；另一位則是國內媒體人出身的徐璐。中文主題叫：「民主開放=媒體沉淪？」，英文主題則是：「Responsible Media in Democracy?」

我自己就在媒體，所以對這個議題深感興趣，就跑來聽聽看。

Doreen的演說內容我覺得相當紮實，顯然跟他在紐約時報的訓練有關；徐璐的說法比較混亂。

基本上，Doreen認為 commercialism 在媒體裡面並不盡然代表邪惡；而徐璐則似乎再三強調蘋果日報或壹週刊進來台灣對台灣媒體的水平是一大傷害，導致媒體都利益取向，看讀者愛看什麼就給什麼。

但有趣的是，Doreen其實還蠻認同香港蘋果日報的經營，因為她認為蘋果日報有注意到讀者的需求，且力求讀者能很容易消化新聞，同時給的薪資也是同業裡最高，但表注重新聞品質（薪資高才能吸引優秀人才的加入）。

我十分認同Doreen的看法，截至目前為止，我認為蘋果日報跟壹週刊其實是最具有國際媒體採訪標準的，國內其他包括中國時報、聯合報我覺得都不及格。

會後有Q&A，我猜或許有些學校教授有要求學生來聆聽，甚至發問，因此在場似乎有許多學生模樣的人來聽，我歸結一下印象：

1. 在場起來詢問的台灣大學學生英文程度都非常好，問的問題也相當深入。

2. 有一位是政治大學英國語文系的學生，我覺得有些丟臉。她的英文發音很不錯，但她不斷強調她常聽英國BBC、天天看紐約時報，她覺得國內媒體都很糟，接著問的問題就不知所云，連Doreen都不知道怎麼回答。更糟糕的是，她起來發問，竟然還大膽說，「我忘了你主持人叫什麼名字...」搞什麼啊，你手上沒有主講人的資料嗎？很沒禮貌ㄟ。

3. 有一個白髮蒼蒼級的老人起來問Doreen，能否給「中國」與「中華民國總統」一些建設性的建議...講些有的沒的，也很丟臉，還好Doreen說這個問題她也不知道如何回答。

4. 有個Taipei Times記者詢問，他說社內常會把一些泛綠不好的新聞壓下來，他不知道怎麼辦。這點除璐答得不錯：「媒體是你自己選的，你覺得有違你良心，你就跳到別的媒體就好，何必自欺欺人..」(最後幾個字是我延伸解讀)。

Doreen則認為，記者有時都想搞一個大新聞，但事實上你得先證明你有本事處理那麼大的事件。若社方不允許你寫，你就把事件先做小一點報導，先爭取社方認同，以後社方才能信任你。

讚啦，Taipei Times跟自由時報是同一個老闆，當然是泛綠的很嚴重，但Taipei Times基本上是相當捍衛台灣獨立立場，放在國際上，比較容易讓老外知道台灣的政策立場，我很新賞林榮三有腦子辦出這個英文報紙來。

但這個stupid記者， 說得一口非常棒的英文，腦筋卻跟豆腐一樣，誰曉得你採訪的新聞是不是夠水準呢？不見得壓下來就是不對嘛。若你覺得這是藍綠的問題，你幹嘛不跳去China Post就好了，真是無聊ㄟ，講得好像台灣媒體多虧待有良心的記者一樣...厚。

5. 同時有幾個大學生都問到，國內媒體太不重視國際新聞...很糟糕云云。Doreen的回答很好，她說多報國際新聞本身並不見然是個好事，因為新聞本身就是必須跟讀者有切身關係，所以本地新聞一定是最重要的，諸如紐約時報那種很注重國際新聞的作法即使在美國都是特例，其他的媒體如ABC，CBS等有線電視都早關掉國際辦公室了，也沒在做國際採訪的。

這點我完全舉雙手贊成，許多人都被洗腦洗得很誇張，好像非得看紐約時報，BBC，CNN才是國際新公民。你不知道伊拉克發生什麼事，表示你很無知。事實上根本不是如此。

大概這樣..想到再繼續寫