2012年1月31日 星期二

選前遮掩 選後現形/ 蔡:培養新世代領導力

蔡:培養新世代領導力
總統選舉落敗的蔡英文昨天到高雄謝票,她表示民進黨要讓下一個世代接班。(記者張忠義攝)

〔記者侯承旭、傅潮標、王錦義/綜合報導〕民進黨主席蔡英文昨天到高雄市與竹苗地區謝票,蔡英文指出,民進黨未來四年要培養新世代的政治領導能力,下一個世代的領導人不要溫良恭儉讓的人,要能獨當一面、捨我其誰。

領導人要能獨當一面

民進黨在高雄市的總統得票比馬英九多了十五.三萬票,九席區域立委則拿下七席。蔡昨天上午到高雄向輔選幹部致謝,市長陳菊及八名立委參選人都到場迎接,獨缺連任失利的郭玟成。

對於蔡英文在高雄無法達到贏馬英九二十二萬票的目標,陳菊感到歉意,強調自己身為競選總部主委,要承擔最大責任。陳菊認為這次投票率不如預期,黨內要深切檢討,「勇於面對失敗,才能再出發。」

蔡英文則要陳菊「放寬心」,「這次總統大選結果雖然有缺憾,但大家已經盡力了,且立委席次增加,算是最圓滿的缺憾。」

蔡 英文表示,民進黨的立委增至四十席,很多都是四十歲的世代,雖然年紀很輕,卻有很深的政治歷練,民進黨現階段要開始培養新世代的政治領導能力,下一個世代 的領導人不要溫良恭儉讓的人,而要成為獨當一面、捨我其誰的世代,足以領導社會及議題。她強調,過去四年是民進黨轉型的第一個階段,未來四年民進黨面臨更 嚴酷的淬鍊,四十名黨籍立委要承擔責任。

蔡英文下午則到竹苗謝票,她表示未來是更困難的一哩路,希望小豬的力量不要中斷,呼籲支持者不要散去、不要失望,傷心難過後要繼續堅定向前走,跟人民團結在一起,加入隊伍的人愈多就愈有戰鬥力,希望四年後能開花結果。

籲支持者堅定向前走

蔡英文表示,民進黨在這次總統大選雖然失敗,但已經為台灣留下正面的東西,包括三隻小豬小額募款的乾淨選舉、聚焦在公共政策議題,為台灣建立新的政治文化與典範,希望未來能成為台灣選舉的常態。

她說,選戰結束,是另一個階段的開始,民進黨要檢討自己,要更成熟、更理性、更堅強,台灣民主有很多問題,但這不是失敗的藉口,民進黨要變得更強大,下個階段要讓人民對民進黨更有信心,人民才願意把國家的重擔託付給民進黨。


---
選前遮掩 選後現形// 景氣連兩個月藍燈
經建會昨天公布去年十二月景氣對策信號,綜合判斷分數為十四分,燈號為藍燈,十一月景氣燈號,經修正後,也從黃藍燈下修到藍燈,等於是台灣景氣一連兩個月亮藍燈。圖為台北街頭因景氣低迷,不少店面都乏人問津。 (記者林正堃攝)

〔記者陳梅英、鄭琪芳/台北報導〕選後變燈號?經建會昨公布去年十二月景氣燈號,亮出代表低迷的藍燈;而選前時任副閣揆的陳?說「肯定不是藍燈」的十一月景氣燈號,經修正後,也從黃藍燈下修到藍燈,等於是台灣景氣一連兩個月亮藍燈。

此外,前經建會主委劉憶如在去年底對外表達今年經濟成長率有信心「保四(四%)」,但選後也馬上破功。主計處昨天公布今年全年經濟成長率預測,由原先預估的四.一九%下修至三.九一%,選後不保四。

11月燈號黃藍燈 選後變藍

經建會編列的景氣對策信號是由九項指標構成,分別是貨幣總計數M1B、直接及間接金融、股價指數、工業生產指數、非農業部門就業人數、海關出口值、機械及電機設備進口值、製造業銷售值與批發、零售及餐飲營業額指數。

由於出口、工業生產與製造業等實質經濟面的數據持續惡化,原本外界推估去年十一月景氣對策信號將會跌破十七分的門檻值,掉入象徵景氣低迷的藍燈,但在經建會修正前一個月的製造業銷售值下,十一月景氣對策信號雖然掉了二分,卻仍守住黃藍燈。

但選後燈號卻變了!經建會昨公布十二月的景氣燈號,修正了十一月的景氣對策信號分數,從十七分減為十六分,也就是景氣燈號從黃藍燈變成藍燈;十二月更在直接及間接金融與海關出口值再減一分下,總分數只剩下十四分,再亮一顆藍燈。

影響去年十一月燈號修正的還是製造業銷售值。十一月的製造業銷售值原本是○.一(藍燈門檻值為○),停留在黃藍燈,昨日修正回去,十一月製造業銷售值就變為負的四.四,轉為藍燈。

經建會被質疑 大選前護盤

對燈號變燈,經建會解釋是,經濟部當月的製造業銷售值比經建會燈號編製時間晚兩個月,所以這項指標向來是經建會按趨勢先抓一個估計值作推算,這個估計值有一定的模型與方法,「過去都相當準確,但有些時候也會產生估計值與實際值落差情況」。

外界質疑經建會刻意在選前護盤、改燈號,經建會副主委胡仲英駁斥「不可能」,他說維持公信力對於一個景氣預測機關來說是非常重要的事,長官也不會授命做這種事。

修製造業銷售值 影響燈號

從過去歷史來看,自二○○九年一月到現在的三十五個月中,製造業銷售值曾經有九個月修正,只是這是第一次因修正了該數值而影響到總燈號。

此外,六個月領先指標平滑化年變動率也在修正後,從原本連續下滑二十四個月轉為連續上升四個月;領先指標向來是判斷未來六個月景氣的重要指標。

經建會經研處處長洪瑞彬說,這代表谷底不遠,春天燕子已經出現,景氣可望於第一季落底、最晚第二季,今年景氣將逐季成長。

2012年1月30日 星期一

China Sees Vast Pollution/廣西飲用水危機Tainted river sparks bottled water craze

國政府在其《第一次全國污染源普查報告》中說﹐中國的水污染狀況以及工業廢物排放情況都比以前認為的嚴重許多。環保人士認為﹐這份普查報告是朝增加透明度邁出的一步﹐值得歡迎。

Associated Press
一名工人站在中國一火力發電廠旁
週二發佈的這一中國首份官方性全國污染源普查報告稱﹐2007年排入水中的污染物總量為3,030萬噸﹐比2008年一份報告中所說的1,380萬噸高出了一倍多。政府在2008年這份報告中說﹐2007年的水污染比2006年下降了3% 。

中 國環境保護部副部長張力軍在一個新聞發佈會上說﹐從普查數據和以往統計數據的懸殊差異可以看出﹐第一次全國污染源普查在調查方面更精確了﹐首次將農業源水 污染物包括在內﹐農業源污水中含有大量氨等化學物質。這些化學物質來自化肥和農藥﹐後者雖然使農業耕作發生了革命性變革﹐但卻被千百萬農民不當使用﹐這些 農民通常都在零散的小片土地上耕作。

新的統計數據凸顯出中國急需進行河道清理﹐因為它們吸納更多污染物的能力正在縮減。中國估計﹐其水體具備每年自然淨化污染物約700萬噸的能力。

不 過﹐中國非營利環保組織公眾與環境研究中心的負責人馬軍認為﹐這份普查報告朝承認問題邁出了重要的第一步﹐接下來就能夠採取行動了。公眾與環境研究中心使 用各種已公開發表的報告匯編了一個顯示全國空氣和水污染情況的數據庫。馬軍說﹐他認為普查數據的公佈非常具有積極意義。

環 保人士說﹐由於地方官員不願採用更嚴格的環保標準﹐這一普查報告在引發環保變革方面的效力可能是有限的。中國主要依據經濟增長情況來對地方官員進行績效評 估﹐而提高環保標準有可能限制工業增長。環保部副部長張力軍說﹐在對政府官員的政績進行年度評估時﹐將不會考慮這份普查報告的結果。這次普查是中國動用約 50萬人歷時數年完成的。

週二公佈的普查數據還顯示﹐中國的工業廢物製造量比以往報告所顯示的要高很多﹐這些工業廢物還包括有害物質。中 國環保部說﹐2007年來自礦山和鋼鐵廠的工業固體廢物總量為4,914萬噸﹐比此前報告的2007年這一數字高出兩倍多。環保部未對這一數值差作出解 釋。在中國﹐污染和其他環境問題除引發人們對健康問題的擔憂外﹐已經成了一個導致社會不穩的主要誘因。

Shai Oster


廣西柳州應急指揮部1月31日向媒體通報最新水情稱,柳江飲用水源水質符合國家標準,事態發展全在預測掌控之中。劉萬強攝 中新網柳州1月31日電(記者蒙鳴明劉萬強)廣西 ...
廣西龍江河鎘污染團前鋒進入柳州水源保護地國際日報
廣西鎘汙染_威脅到柳州水源中時電子報
公開及時 柳州應對龍江河鎘污染事件信息發布獲好評新華網廣西頻道


2010年02月10日09:54 China Sees Vast Pollution


China's government said its water is far more polluted and its industry is producing far more waste than previously realized, in a major study that environmentalists welcomed as a step toward greater transparency.

China's first official nationwide census of pollution sources, issued Tuesday, found that the amount of pollution discharged into the water totaled 30.3 million metric tons in 2007 -- more than double the 13.8 million tons reported for that year in a 2008 report, where the government said water pollution had declined 3% from 2006.

At a news conference, Zhang Lijun, vice minister for environment protection, said the huge increase reflected the census's more accurate measurements that for the first time included wastewater runoff from farms that is laden with chemicals such as ammonia. The chemicals are in fertilizers and pesticides that have revolutionized food cultivation but are misused by millions of farmers who typically work on fragmented plots of land.

The new numbers underscore the urgent need for China to clean up its waterways, because of their shrinking capacity to absorb more pollution. China estimates its water has the natural ability to safely absorb about seven million tons a year of pollution discharge.

Still, the report represents 'an important first step to recognize the problem. Then you can take action,' said environmentalist Ma Jun, head of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a nonprofit organization that has compiled a database of nationwide air and water pollution using public records. 'I think this is highly positive for this data to be disclosed.'

Environmentalists said the survey's effectiveness in sparking change may be limited by reluctance among local officials, who are mostly judged on economic performance, to employ tougher standards that might limit industrial growth. Mr. Zhang, the vice minister, said the results of the census, which involved years of effort and about half a million workers, won't be considered in annual performance reviews of government bureaucrats.

Tuesday's data also indicated that China is producing far more industrial waste, including hazardous material, than previously reported. The ministry said industrial solid waste such as particles from mines or steel mills totaled 49.14 million tons in 2007 -- more than triple earlier figures for the year. The ministry didn't give an explanation for the discrepancy.
Pollution and other environmental issues have become a leading cause of social unrest in China, in addition to spurring health concerns.


***

Environment | 26.01.2012

Tainted river sparks bottled water craze in China

A river in Guanxi has been contaminated with toxic cadmium. Residents, who usually get drinking water from the river, are now stocking up on bottled water.

Residents in China's southern city Liuzhou scrambled for bottled water after authorities found excessive quantities of cadmium in the Longjiang River. The toxicity levels are as much as three times higher than the government’s accepted level, state media said Thursday.

"The contamination was first detected on January 15 near a dam on the Longjiang River after dead fish had been found," water expert Ma Jun said, blaming authorities for not releasing the news of the contamination early enough.

Waste containing a large amount of cadmium had been discharged into the river by the mining company Jinhe, said Ma. Authorities took immediate measures by dumping special chemicals into the water to neutralize it.

A man lugs water on a bicyclePeople are stocking up on drinking water

Gu Jidong, professor of Environmental Science with the University of Hong Kong, told Deutsche Welle it is not something new that agricultural products are tainted by cadmium, as there is a large amount of cadmium in the environment. "It happened in Japan before, where rice contained cadmium exceeding the safety limit," said Gu, adding that agricultural products were more likely to be contaminated than water.

Cadmium has traditionally been used in the electronics industry. Old-fashioned batteries contain this element or mercury. Cadmium is carcinogenic and can seriously cause damage to kidneys, bones and respiratory system, according to information from the World Health Organization.

According to Gu, the lack of accountability and the lack knowledge are the two main factors leading to frequent pollution. "First, it concerns the ownership of land. The land belongs to the country. So people might think they shouldn’t be responsible for the land because it is not theirs. And the local governments tend to give economic benefits a higher priority than environmental protection," said Gu. Furthermore, "most people are unaware how serious the environmental pollution is, especially farmers and villagers." Gu suggested that the media should cover more issues concerning the environment to raise public awareness.

A woman collects plastic bottles near a river where water is polluted with a reddish dye Waste is disposed in an improper manner

Public scare

Shelves carrying bottled water were almost vacated in one supermarket, as a picture of Xinhua news agency showed. Chinese state media also said authorities had dispatched officials to ensure there was an abundant supply of bottled water.

"Water pollution is rife, from city to village, from tributary to river," said Ma, pointing out that over 100 million rural dwellers are still drinking water below standard and around one in five water reserves in cities are not up to standard, "except in big cities like Beijing, where water reserves are under strict control."

Gu is not optimistic about the future of water pollution. "I think in the years to come, the environment will continue to deteriorate." Although this is not a problem which can be solved overnight, what the government can at least do, according to Gu, is to keep the public well-informed and educate on the importance of purifying water by means of filtering or boiling.

Author: Miriam Wong
Editor: Sarah Berning

富士康(Foxconn) 害慘蘋果(Apple)公司: 深陷“中國問題”漩渦

富士康(Foxconn) 害慘蘋果(Apple)公司: 深陷“中國問題”漩渦

蘋果深陷“中國問題”漩渦

Getty Images

週開始的時候﹐蘋果(Apple)還在因為創紀錄的季度利潤而得意洋洋﹐然而到了上週結束的時候﹐該公司則經歷了一場公共關係的大退步。上週﹐有報道指蘋果在中國組裝熱賣產品iPad和iPhone的工廠存在剝削工人的現象。

眼下﹐媒體關注的焦點集中到了蘋果和該公司的合約供應商──台灣企業富士康(Foxconn)身上。不過﹐隨著國際媒體把目光轉移到中國條件惡劣的製造業﹐中國的領導層也將為之感到不安。

在中國引人矚目的經濟發展的幕後﹐有大約1.2億農民工在辛苦勞作﹐他們大多在條件艱苦的廠區里生活和工作。

中國的工業轉型已經進行了20餘年﹐有關部門應該為戶口制度承擔多大的責任?由於戶口制度的存在﹐民工在他們自己的國家裡差不多成了二等公民。

不過眼下﹐首當其衝的是蘋果。《紐約時報》(New York Times)刊發的一篇關於不安全工作條件的報道引發了媒體的興趣。該報道還提及了蘋果在中國的供應商富士康每天七個小時的工作日和擁擠的宿舍。

斯圖爾特(Jon Stewart)在喜劇中心電視台(Comedy Central)的脫口秀節目里把蘋果巨大的利潤幕後的富士康工廠譏諷為“恐怖工廠”(Fear Factory)﹐這次公共關係事件對蘋果造成的打擊因而又被推高了一個層級。

蘋果面臨的問題在於﹐在幽默而令人震驚的新聞標題背後﹐有關中國大陸工廠的很多真相被揭露了出來﹐這足以令蘋果的客戶感到被冒犯﹐並最終對該公司的金字招牌造成損害。

更何況﹐追究責任以及改進當前的狀況遠非易事。

蘋 果的首席執行長庫克(Cook)已經對有關供應商不安全工作條件的報道表達了極端憤慨﹐並且承諾要加強審計。還應該記住的是﹐蘋果只是以富士康為組裝供應 商的眾多國際公司當中的一個﹐其他公司還包括諾基亞(Nokia)、戴爾(Dell)和微軟(Microsoft)等。

2010年的時候﹐富士康工廠就曾發生過一系列員工自殺事件﹐當時媒體對此進行過廣泛報道。富士康在中國的雇員人數逾100萬。

自殺事件發生之後﹐富士康不但給員工加薪﹐還開通了幫助熱線﹐拉上了安全網﹐防止員工跳樓。富士康員工的底薪從每月1,200元提高到了2,000元(合315美元)。

因為規模巨大的緣故﹐富士康每每吸引眾多關注的目光。在富士康深圳廠區工作和生活的員工數量超過了30萬﹐相當於一個小鎮的人口。

儘管工人們住的很可能仍是侷促的公共宿舍﹐但過去10年來﹐深圳已經轉變成一個高樓林立、地鐵發達、路上新車川流不息的城市。

農民工面臨的苦悶前景是﹐他們被阻止加入這個新的中國。由於數十年來存在的戶口制度﹐他們不能像當地人一樣享受住房、教育、醫療等居民福利。

這正迎合了省級政府的需要﹐他們不願承擔提供這類服務的成本﹐不願承擔為像富士康深圳工廠這樣眾多工人流入所需的基礎設施的成本。與此同時﹐他們卻仍在從位於當地的企業獲得稅收收入。

在中國開始工業化進程之初﹐這樣一種體系或許還能說得通。但將一批永久的“劣等公民”當作工廠的“炮灰”﹐這樣做不可避免地會導致緊張關係不斷加劇。

這樣一個龐大戶口制度的另一個不良後果是﹐它使農民工家庭難以在新的地方安置下來。估計有5,800萬農民工子女成為留守兒童﹐由親戚或福利院照顧。

圍繞改革戶口制度反復進行了討論﹐但目前為止卻沒有什麼實際行動。面臨的一個難題是﹐不僅是企業從戶口制度帶來的順從的廉價勞動力中獲益﹐省級政府也得到了好處。任何改革都將意味著收入進行重新分配﹐從共產黨機構中分配出去。

然而﹐眾所周知﹐中國需要恢復經濟的平衡﹐以便從投資向消費傾斜。中國的經濟在全球表現突出﹐而家庭消費率卻處於前所未有的低點﹐只相當於國內生產總值(GDP)的36%。

看起來再明顯不過的是﹐良好的第一步將是解除對這些農民工的束縛﹐允許他們實際上安居樂業。記者最近在走訪廣東惠州期間體會到了中國失衡經濟的現實。在那裡﹐工廠旁邊就是不斷擴張的尚無人居住的住宅樓。

人類生活的唯一跡象是在工廠宿舍外閑逛的工人。

對此常見的回答是﹐中國缺乏推進這類戶口改革所需的政治共識。

與此同時﹐蘋果和其他跨國公司會辯稱﹐他們只是在遵守中國等國家當局制定的規定。

這或許可以理解﹐但這種局面還能維持多久﹐特別是如果它開始冒犯具有社會責任感的蘋果消費者的時候?

畢竟﹐如果消費者心甘情願要求購買有機柴雞蛋﹐那麼距離他們要求購買由擁有基本尊嚴的工人所生產的智能手機或許也不太遠了。

這一事件的發展還有待觀察。這回不太可能是蘋果或中國政府在這個棘手問題上的最終發言。

Craig Stephen

2012年1月25日 星期三

歐巴馬國情咨文中的貧富: 中國印度和韓國Obama State Of The Union Speech 2011

Obama Sets Goal of Bridging Wealth Gap

“I will not go back to the days when Wall Street
was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”


Daily chart

Absent friends

Jan 24th 2012, 15:58 by The Economist online

World economic growth is originating almost exclusively from the emerging world

The IMF released its updated take on the world's economic growth prospects on January 24th. Dragged down by the euro crisis, the Fund expects world economic output to slow to 3.3% in 2012, against an estimate of 3.8% for 2011. This is 0.7 percentage points lower than the forecast it made in September. Emerging markets account for around half of global economic output but, given the continued process of deleveraging across the rich world, the IMF expects them to contribute over 80% of world GDP growth in 2012. America's contribution is expected to decline from 21% on average during the 1980s to 10% during 2010-13. Meanwhile China's contribution has increased from 8% in the 1980s to 31% on average for 2010-13.

美國總統奧巴馬在任期內第三次國情咨文講話中抨擊了收入不平等現象,為其競選連任的方針定下基調。

在國會發表的向全國轉播的電視講話中,奧巴馬強調了經濟應當讓所有人獲益的重要性。

在美國經濟面臨復蘇、失業率仍然高達8.5%之際,奧巴馬再次提到對富人征收更高稅額的問題。

一年一度的總統國情咨文是最受美國公眾關注的重要講話,其中傳統性地包括美國政府在下一個年度的政策走向。

奧巴馬說:「我們或者接受美國正在成為一個越來越多人面臨困境而越來越少人發財的國家,或者重新恢復公平享有機會一視同仁的經濟秩序,使全體人民獲益。」

富人稅

奧巴馬說,面臨危險的既不是民主黨的價值觀,也不是共和黨的價值觀,而是美國價值觀,所以我們必須使其重新確立。

奧巴馬向其對手發出警告說,他將採取行動掃除障礙,決不允許那些導致美國陷入經濟衰退的政策捲土重來。

奧巴馬再次聲明將實施對富人加稅的政策。他說:「如果你每年收入100萬美元,你絕不該繳納低於30%的所得稅。」

他對反對者說:「如果你們願意,儘可以把這一政策稱之為階級鬥爭。讓一個億萬富翁至少繳納和他的秘書一樣的稅務額度有什麼錯?絕大多數老百姓會認為這是人之常情。」

支持率

民調顯示,奧巴馬的支持率已經跌落到50%以下,大多數美國人對奧巴馬政府掌控經濟的能力感到不滿。

美國失業人口已經超過1300萬,政府債務達到有史以來最高的15.2萬億美元,比奧巴馬上台之前增加了10.6萬億。

但民調還顯示,以共和黨為主的眾議院的支持率甚至更低,許多美國人把黨派之爭的惡果歸咎於共和黨保守派。

國會內的激烈爭執導致許多政策流產或擱淺,聯邦政府去年曾三次幾乎因此而停止運作。


歐巴馬國情咨文 反陸補貼出口 【11:40】

〔中央社〕美國總統歐巴馬今天發表國情咨文時表示,針對中國大陸等國家補貼國內商品出口到美國,對美國廠商不公平。歐巴馬將對這些國家加強施壓,要求他們停止這種不公平行為。

歐巴馬在演說中表示,將成立新政府單位,致力於與這些國家對抗,打擊他們的補貼政策。歐巴馬此舉目的在支持美國製造業並創造就業機會。

「今晚,我宣布成立貿易執法小組。該單位將負責調查如中國等採取不公平貿易措施的國家。」

「我會走遍全世界,為美國產品開發新市場。」

歐巴馬表示,中國等競爭者提供國內企業低利貸款,以協助這些企業贏得海外生意。對此,美國無法承擔這個後果,無法袖手旁觀。

他說:「若我們的競爭者不遵守規則,我絕對不會袖手旁觀。我們對中國提出的貿易訴訟比例將近是上個執政團隊的2倍…而這已經顯現出成效。」

「有國家允許任何人盜版我們的電影、音樂和軟體,這是不對的。外國製造業者因為他們的政府給與強力補貼而勝過我們,這是不公平的。」

美國將於3月公布2011年對中國大陸的貿易逆差。預料數字將達3000億美元左右,創下紀錄新高。

Obama State Of The Union Speech 2011: FULL TEXT


Prior to President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday evening, the National Journal obtained a draft of the address from an unidentified Democratic source. The release from the anonymous insider broke the White House's embargo. Below are the president's delivered remarks as released by the White House, as well as video of the speech.

Click here for the latest coverage of the 2011 State of the Union.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. (Applause.) And as we mark this occasion, we're also mindful of the empty chair in this chamber, and we pray for the health of our colleague -- and our friend -- Gabby Giffords. (Applause.)

It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passion and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater -- something more consequential than party or political preference.

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation. (Applause.)

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow. (Applause.)

I believe we can. And I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

At stake right now is not who wins the next election -- after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.

We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.

But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.

That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together. (Applause.)

We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of new investments that they make this year. And these steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.

But we have to do more. These steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession, but to win the future, we'll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn't always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you'd have a job for life, with a decent paycheck and good benefits and the occasional promotion. Maybe you'd even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I've seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts on once busy Main Streets. I've heard it in the frustrations of Americans who've seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear -- proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.

They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.

Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.

So, yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn't discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember -- for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. (Applause.) No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We're the home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -- the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That's why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It's why our students don't just memorize equations, but answer questions like "What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?"

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can't just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, "The future is not a gift. It is an achievement." Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

And now it's our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. (Applause.) We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future. (Applause.) And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We're the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It is how we make our living. (Applause.)

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs -- from manufacturing to retail -- that have come from these breakthroughs.

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn't even there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -- (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. (Applause.)

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. (Applause.) I don't know if -- I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. (Laughter.) So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. (Applause.)

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen. (Applause.)

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success. But if we want to win the future -- if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -- then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.

Think about it. Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us -- as citizens, and as parents -- are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair. (Applause.) We need to teach them that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test. That's why instead of just pouring money into a system that's not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all 50 states, we said, "If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money."

Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than 1 percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. And these standards were developed, by the way, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that's more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids. (Applause.)

You see, we know what's possible from our children when reform isn't just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals, school boards and communities. Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado -- located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97 percent of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their families to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said, "Thank you, Ms. Waters, for showing that we are smart and we can make it." (Applause.) That's what good schools can do, and we want good schools all across the country.

Let's also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as "nation builders." Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. (Applause.) We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. (Applause.) And over the next 10 years, with so many baby boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math. (Applause.)

In fact, to every young person listening tonight who's contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child -- become a teacher. Your country needs you. (Applause.)

Of course, the education race doesn't end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within the reach of every American. (Applause.) That's why we've ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students. (Applause.) And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit -- worth $10,000 for four years of college. It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

Because people need to be able to train for new jobs and careers in today's fast-changing economy, we're also revitalizing America's community colleges. Last month, I saw the promise of these schools at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. Many of the students there used to work in the surrounding factories that have since left town. One mother of two, a woman named Kathy Proctor, had worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old. And she told me she's earning her degree in biotechnology now, at 55 years old, not just because the furniture jobs are gone, but because she wants to inspire her children to pursue their dreams, too. As Kathy said, "I hope it tells them to never give up."

If we take these steps -- if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they are born until the last job they take -- we will reach the goal that I set two years ago: By the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. (Applause.)

One last point about education. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. (Applause.) I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation. (Applause.)

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information -- from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet. (Applause.)

Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a "D."

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, constructed the Interstate Highway System. The jobs created by these projects didn't just come from laying down track or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town's new train station or the new off-ramp.

So over the last two years, we've begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. And tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble those efforts. (Applause.)

We'll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We'll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what's best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying -- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we'll make it possible for businesses to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98 percent of all Americans. This isn't just about -- (applause) -- this isn't about faster Internet or fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments -- in innovation, education, and infrastructure -- will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.

For example, over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. (Applause.)

So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years -- without adding to our deficit. It can be done. (Applause.)

To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 -- because the more we export, the more jobs we create here at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs here in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor, Democrats and Republicans -- and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible. (Applause.)

Now, before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers and promote American jobs. That's what we did with Korea, and that's what I intend to do as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks. (Applause.)

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. (Applause.) But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people. (Applause.) That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. (Applause.) And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients. (Applause.)

Now, I have heard rumors that a few of you still have concerns about our new health care law. (Laughter.) So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. (Applause.)

What I'm not willing to do -- what I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.)

I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business man from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their patients' -- parents' coverage. (Applause.)

So I say to this chamber tonight, instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward. (Applause.)

Now, the final critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.

We are living with a legacy of deficit spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. (Applause.) Now, this would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we've frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without. (Applause.)

I recognize that some in this chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. (Applause.) And let's make sure that what we're cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you feel the impact. (Laughter.)

Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12 percent of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't. (Applause.)

The bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes. (Applause.)

This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year -- medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits. (Applause.)

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. (Applause.) Before we take money away from our schools or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success. (Applause.)

In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. (Applause.) This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them. (Applause.)

So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done. If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.

Let me take this one step further. We shouldn't just give our people a government that's more affordable. We should give them a government that's more competent and more efficient. We can't win the future with a government of the past. (Applause.)

We live and do business in the Information Age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black-and-white TV. There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater. (Laughter.) I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, we've made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we'll cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote -- and we will push to get it passed. (Applause.)

In the coming year, we'll also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you'll be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done -- put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it. (Applause.)

The 21st century government that's open and competent. A government that lives within its means. An economy that's driven by new skills and new ideas. Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation. It will also require us to approach that world with a new level of engagement in our foreign affairs.

Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West. No one rival superpower is aligned against us.

And so we must defeat determined enemies, wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. And America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom and justice and dignity. And because we've begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored.

Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high. (Applause.) American combat patrols have ended, violence is down, and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America's commitment has been kept. The Iraq war is coming to an end. (Applause.)

Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we're disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family. (Applause.)

We've also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan security forces. Our purpose is clear: By preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.

Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home. (Applause.)

In Pakistan, al Qaeda's leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe havens are shrinking. And we've sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: We will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you. (Applause.)

American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher sanctions, tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean Peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

This is just a part of how we're shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense. We've reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, built new partnerships with nations like India.

This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances across the Americas. Around the globe, we're standing with those who take responsibility -- helping farmers grow more food, supporting doctors who care for the sick, and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.

Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power -- it must also be the purpose behind it. In south Sudan -- with our assistance -- the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. (Applause.) Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: "This was a battlefield for most of my life," he said. "Now we want to be free." (Applause.)

And we saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: The United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people. (Applause.)

We must never forget that the things we've struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country. (Applause.)

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they've served us -- by giving them the equipment they need, by providing them with the care and benefits that they have earned, and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

Our troops come from every corner of this country -- they're black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. (Applause.) And with that change, I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation. (Applause.)

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools, changing the way we use energy, reducing our deficit -- none of this will be easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The costs. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth. (Applause.)

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything is possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working-class kid from Scranton can sit behind me. (Laughter and applause.) That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)

That dream -- that American Dream -- is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It's what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.

Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania, that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. And one day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.

But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000-foot hole into the ground, working three- or four-hour -- three or four days at a time without any sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. (Applause.) But because he didn't want all of the attention, Brandon wasn't there when the miners emerged. He'd already gone back home, back to work on his next project.

And later, one of his employees said of the rescue, "We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things." (Applause.)

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That's how we win the future.

We're a nation that says, "I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company." "I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree." "I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try." "I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will."

We do big things. (Applause.)

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it's because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 10:13 P.M. EST

中國共產黨是「赤裸裸的流氓」,「左手捧鈔票,右手拿刺刀......


中國‧西藏騷亂擴散‧美國促克制

(中國‧北京25日訊)中國藏區形勢再度升溫!從大年初一開始,中國四川省甘孜藏族自治州連續兩天爆發藏人暴亂,警方被迫開鎗鎮壓,造成傷亡,並引起美國關切,要求中國安全部隊保持克制。

甘孜藏人騷亂持續擴散,繼距離成都590公里的爐霍縣在大年初一發生藏人暴力衝擊派出所事件後,翌日年初二下午,色達縣金馬廣場又有近百藏人聚集,手持棍棒、石塊、刀具、汽油瓶等器械,暴力衝擊城關派出所。

該派出所一名警察指出,示威者用隨身攜帶的汽油瓶、石塊攻擊民警,並向他們開鎗射擊,造成14名民警受傷。

警方最終持鎗自衛,造成1名示威者死亡,另1人被警棍擊傷,還有13人被拘捕。

新華社報導,之前發生騷亂的爐霍縣城有1名示威者死亡,4人受傷,另有5名民警受傷,並稱當地秩序已恢復正常。但該縣壽靈寺有喇嘛向美聯社表示,有33名受傷藏人在寺內治療,約50輛軍車停在寺外,軍警要求帶走傷者,但遭寺方拒絕。

開鎗鎮壓3死數十人傷

總部設在倫敦的自由西藏組織表示,中國軍警連續兩天開鎗武力鎮壓藏人示威者,已造成至少3人死亡,數十人受傷。

西藏流亡政府領袖洛桑桑蓋週二發表聲明,呼吁國際社會介入。

美國國務院對中國軍警向藏族示威者開鎗表示嚴正關切,敦促軍警在對待藏民時保持克制,同時呼吁中國政府與流亡海外的西藏精神領袖達賴喇嘛或他的代表展開建設性對話,並允許外國記者、外交官以及其他觀察人員進入藏區。

事件也令中國國家副主席習近平下月訪美行程蒙上陰影,美方聲稱將趁習近平訪美時提出包括西藏情勢在內的人權問題。

(星洲日報/國際)




廖亦武《證詞》

中國流亡詩人廖亦武訪台 出版《六四‧我的證詞》
自由時報/趙靜瑜 101.1.9

用生命寫作,用寫作支撐著生命,4年牢獄生涯,中國先鋒派詩人廖亦武書寫《六四‧我的證詞》,表達了深刻的文
自覺,「通過寫這本書,我重新找回了尊嚴。」


六四牢獄寫成中國禁書 流亡至德國出版
從來不搞政治,卻因在「六四」當天朗誦自己寫的詩作《大屠殺》而遭逮捕入獄,4年坐牢自殺2次未果。1994年1月,由於英首相梅傑和國際特赦組織的努力,廖亦武提前43天獲釋。在中國忍耐多年,廖亦武去年以雲南、越南、波蘭等「奇異路徑」逃離中國,流亡並定居德國,出版了被禁作品《六四‧我的證詞》德文版。「我是為了出版這本書,決定離開中國。」
廖亦武日前首度訪台,展開2個月的駐點訪問。廖亦武表示,《六四‧我的證詞》前兩卷初稿寫於獄內,「在一頁紙上儘可能多寫字,甚至超過萬字,連標點也蹦蹦地搏動起來,我已辨認不了自己的筆跡。」由於手稿經常被獄卒沒收,廖亦武不得不一邊寫作,一邊把文字默記下來,沒收一批,再重寫一批。出獄後,廖亦武持續書寫並受到監視,就在全書快完成之際,手稿又被抄,該書成為中共極力阻撓X版的真實之書,「我只能重寫,耗時又3年。」


籲台灣政治人物 勿與中國簽和平協議
中國共產黨是「赤裸裸的流氓」,「左手捧鈔票,右手拿刺刀,任何逾越中國經濟利益的作為,一定都會遭到共產黨的無情對待。」廖亦武強調,在中國如果不談人權,就只做生意的話,中國的確是非常大的市場;但如果要談人權或其他,「肯定就是用刺刀來對付你。」廖亦武直言,台灣政治人物要認清中國的真面目,過去的歷史已然明鑑,「跟一個流氓簽和平協議不會有任何用處。」

「我不是異議人士,我是個作家,詩人。」廖亦武說「六四」那天中國共產黨的鎮壓,徹底改變了中國,「以前中國人對國家、對民族也許還有些理想,但從那一刻開始,中國人知道這個國家已經不能愛;如果你過於愛這個國家,這個國家肯定會用子彈和槍對付你。」這對廖亦武來說,至為深刻。

願接受中國條件的 只有商人和政客
邀約廖亦武訪台的允晨文化總編輯廖志峰表示,去年廖亦武出版《六四.我的證詞》德文版,突然間,廖亦武攻佔德國所有重要媒體版面,新書登上德國《明鏡周刊》暢銷書排行榜。後又赴美訪問哈佛大學與專家學者及學生對談,「採訪的大規格和熱度,都已是準諾貝爾文學獎得主的高度。」在台灣,接待規格遠不如在歐美,但廖亦武仍然有興趣,廖志峰說,「台灣應該要認識這樣一位等同於索忍尼辛在書寫《古拉格群島》般的良心作家。」

隨身帶著《史記》,還有困頓時街頭賣藝維生的蕭與歌喉,廖亦武將出席2月初的台北國際書展,並將把自己訪談中國數十位經歷六四入獄,之後卻被中國社會遺忘的底層生命,書寫成新作《六四‧群體證言》,預計年中出版。

「我很幸運,我活著寫下這些文字並發表,比起司馬遷,我也很幸運沒有被閹割。」廖亦武說他不接受任何條件回中國,「願意接受條件的,只有商人和政客。」

2012年1月24日 星期二

臭名 郭台銘管理100萬動物/ "流氓"/台灣的空軍二號的故事 /Air Force Two

  • Jerold F. TerHorst, The Flying White House: The Story of Air Force One (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979)

郭台銘稱員工是動物富士康發表道歉聲明
台灣富士康公司發表聲明,為其CEO郭台銘的不當言論表示道歉。此前郭台銘曾將富士康員工比作動物。今年1月中旬,郭台銘和台北動物園園長葉傑生在出席富士康年會時曾說,富士康的員工數量超過100萬,如何管理這100萬動物讓他十分“頭疼”。富士康公司在其發表的聲明中表示,郭台銘“對於任何感到被冒犯的人表示誠摯的歉意”。聲明中也強調,此前媒體在報導時對郭台銘的話斷章取義,郭並未像有些報導中所描述的那樣,刻意中傷員工。


臭名 郭台銘/ "流氓"

雖然沒有看過美國的空軍一號的故事
不過 台灣的故事也可以成書
譬如說陳水扁總統的迷航記也很有意思

近年來的故事更精彩
在李登輝總統時代
辜家的私人飛機必須停在菲律賓

現在的當權者早把蔣經國的訓示忘了
將松山機場開放給郭台銘的座機停放
起初我們對幾乎是免費的停機費感到奇怪
幾年之後我們才知道

原來郭的 可算是台灣的空軍二號
必要時 可以到澎湖和台灣各地助選
率先讓郭某的飛機統一大中國

了不起的德政
難怪中共學會用半價飛機票要把選戰......

這肯定只是我們的專書
台灣的空軍二號的故事
的第一章的第2段






***

Air Force One is the designation of the plane on which the President flies. Since 1989 the President has usually flown on one of two Boeing 747s, each able to carry 80 passengers and 23 crew members to any point on the globe. Each plane is outfitted as a mobile command center and is linked to all U.S. military and national security communications networks.

The planes are coated in silver and have blue trim, and they carry the Presidential seal on their sides. They are operated by the Special Missions Fleet of the 89th Military Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. Expenses for Air Force One come out of the Defense Department budget, unless the President is on a campaign trip, in which case the political party's national committee or campaign committee foots the bill.

Marine One is the designation of the VH-3 helicopter that transports the President from the helipad on the South Lawn of the White House to local destinations or to the hangar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland where he boards Air Force One. Marine Helicopter Squadron One usually consists of eight craft, located at a base just down the Potomac River from the White House. Marine One is often used to take the President and his guests to his rural retreat at Camp David in nearby Maryland.

The cost of operating Air Force One is $40,243 per hour of flight. Each year the Pentagon spends approximately $185 million on travel expenses for the President and his top aides, according to the House Post Office Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Sources

  • Bradley Patterson, The Ring of Power (New York: Basic Books, 1988).
  • Jerold F. TerHorst, The Flying White House: The Story of Air Force One (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1979)

那些美國人收入為頂尖1 %/ Obama 政権、最富裕層への増税提言へ


オバマ政権、最富裕層への増税提言へ 24日にも表明か



 米オバマ政権が近く、富裕層の上位2%の増税などを柱とした包括的な税制改正方針を打ち出す。米政府高官が朝日新聞の単独インタビューで明らかにした。早ければ、オバマ米大統領が24日の一般教書演説で打ち出す可能性がある。

 オバマ大統領は昨年1月の一般教書演説で法人税引き下げの方針を示した。しかし、その後は野党・共和党との間で米国の財政赤字をどう削減するかについての攻防となり、税制改正の議論は進んでいなかった。

 米政府高官によると、オバマ大統領が近く打ち出す包括的な税制改正方針では、企業税制は米国内での投資を促す仕組みにする一方、個人税制については、財政再建に向け各所得層に公正な負担をしてもらうかたちに改めることを提言する見通しだという。






那些美國人收入為頂前尖1 %
iniquity, inequality, parity, disparity, Income In...

Income inequality

Who exactly are the 1%?

The very rich in America increasingly work in finance, marry each other and care passionately about politics


MITT ROMNEY is not the first multi-millionaire to seek the presidency, nor the richest. Ross Perot, the record-holder, spent some of his billions earned from computer data on losing bids in 1992 and 1996. Since then men who owe their or their family’s fortunes to oil, sport, publishing, trial law, ketchup, beer and bestselling autobiographies have followed.

But Mr Romney, who earned his $200m or so as a private-equity executive buying and selling companies, is the first candidate from the world of high-octane finance. As such, he illustrates the changing complexion of America’s rich. The wealthiest 1% of Americans not only get more of the pie (see chart); they are increasingly creatures of finance.

The average household income of the 1% was $1.2m in 2008, according to federal tax data. The ultra-rich skew that average upwards: admission to the 1% began at $380,000 in 2008. The Congressional Budget Office puts the cut-off lower, at $347,000 in 2007, or $252,000 after subtracting federal taxes and adding back transfers. Measured by net worth, rather than income, the top 1% started at $6.9m in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve, down 23% from 2007.

The richest 1% earn roughly half their income from wages and salaries, a quarter from self-employment and business income, and the remainder from interest, dividends, capital gains and rent. According to an analysis of tax returns by Jon Bakija of Williams College and two others, 16% of the top 1% were in medical professions and 8% were lawyers: shares that have changed little between 1979 and 2005, the latest year the authors examined (see chart). The most striking shift has been the growth of financial occupations, from just under 8% of the wealthy in 1979 to 13.9% in 2005. Their representation within the top 0.1% is even more pronounced: 18%, up from 11% in 1979.

Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago thinks finance explains much of the rise in inequality. Updating a series developed by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, Mr Kaplan notes that the share of income going to the 1% reached an 80-year high of 23.5% in 2007, only to sink to 17.6% in 2009 as the financial markets deflated (see chart). The trend is even more pronounced for the top 0.1%, whose share of total income rose to 12.3% in 2007 but sank to a still disproportionate 8.1% in 2009.

Mr Kaplan and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University note that investment bankers, corporate lawyers, hedge-fund and private-equity managers have displaced corporate executives at the top of the income ladder. In 2009 the richest 25 hedge-fund investors earned more than $25 billion, roughly six times as much as all the chief executives of companies in the S&P 500 stock index combined.

Although the 1% have been gaining share in most countries, a recent OECD report shows that the trend began sooner, and has gone further, in America. Some scholars, noting that inequality has risen more in English-speaking countries, think social and political values may play a role: in mainland Europe and Japan, corporate governance, tax laws and unionisation have tended to lessen income disparities. But the relatively large role of the financial sector in English-speaking countries could also be a factor: even more of the top 1% work in finance in Britain than in America.

Membership in America’s 1% is relatively stable; three-quarters of the households in the percentile one year will still be there the next. Although the proportion shrinks over time, one study found that the vast majority of the top 1% were still in the richest 10% a decade later. Kinship plays a big part: rich parents tend to produce rich kids. High levels of educational attainment and stable families help in this. According to Gallup, 72% of the 1% have a college degree, and half have a postgraduate degree; those are two to three times the proportion of the other 99%. The 1% are more likely to be married and to have children.

The rich also increasingly marry people like themselves. Mr Bakija and his co-authors found that between 1979 and 2005, the share of spouses of the 1% who had blue-collar or “miscellaneous” service-sector backgrounds declined slightly, from 7.9% to 6.4%. The share of spouses who worked in finance, property and law rose from 3.5% to 8.8%.

Politically, Gallup polls find that the 1% are more likely than the 99% to identify themselves as Republicans (33% to 28%) and less likely to be Democrats (26% to 33%). A survey of 104 wealthy families in the Chicago area, led by Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, found the budget deficit was their leading worry, followed by unemployment; for the broader population, the reverse is true. Still the rich, like most voters, have eclectic views, often supporting liberal and conservative positions simultaneously. For example, Keith Whitaker, who advises wealthy families on behalf of Wells Fargo, says many of them sympathise with the Occupy Wall Street movement. A lot of them became rich by building businesses and consider Wall Street “the place where businesses are taken apart and run by someone else”.

Bob Perkowitz embodies these contradictions. A rich entrepreneur, he now devotes much of his time to a non-profit environmental outfit. He is a lifelong Republican who objects to George Bush junior’s tax cuts for the wealthy, and backed Barack Obama in 2008. Having restructured companies himself, he has no trouble with Mr Romney’s private-equity work but agrees with Occupy Wall Street that corporations have too much power.

Until recently he split his time between conservative Charlotte, North Carolina, and liberal Washington, DC. His wife, Lisa Renstrom, used to manage hotels inherited from her father, a prosperous Republican businessman. Now she campaigns on climate change and backs Wealth for the Common Good, a group of rich people who back Occupy Wall Street. Her father used to give his occupation as “capitalist”. “I grew up believing that [capitalists] were making the world a better place,” she says. “The capitalism we have has left us with degraded infrastructure, threats to our health, and global warming.”

Most of the 1% prefer not to talk about their good fortune. As the New York Times recently observed in an article on the 1%, “Some envisioned waking up to protesters on the lawn; others feared audits by the IRS or other punitive government action.”

But Mr Perkowitz and Ms Renstrom are utterly typical of the 1% in that they are far more politically engaged than the average 99-percenters. Nearly all the rich people surveyed by Northwestern vote, 68% make campaign contributions, nearly half had contacted a member of Congress and a fifth had solicited contributions on behalf of a candidate. A good chunk of those calls were meant to help their businesses. But many were motivated by the common good, defined in as many different ways as the sources of their wealth.

全球新聞自由Press Freedom Index 2011-2012

Press Freedom Index 2011-2012



http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043

THE RANKING

2011

In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year. Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country’s change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.

RankCountryScore
1 Finland -10,00
- Norway -10,00
3 Estonia -9,00
- Netherlands -9,00
5 Austria -8,00
6 Iceland -7,00
- Luxembourg -7,00
8 Switzerland -6,20
9 Cape Verde -6,00
10 Canada -5,67
- Denmark -5,67
12 Sweden -5,50
13 New Zealand -5,33
14 Czech Republic -5,00
15 Ireland -4,00
16 Cyprus -3,00
- Jamaica -3,00
- Germany -3,00
19 Costa Rica -2,25
20 Belgium -2,00
- Namibia -2,00
22 Japan -1,00
- Surinam -1,00
24 Poland -0,67
25 Mali 0,00
- OECS 0,00
- Slovakia 0,00
28 United Kingdom 2,00
29 Niger 2,50
30 Australia 4,00
- Lithuania 4,00
32 Uruguay 4,25
33 Portugal 5,33
34 Tanzania 6,00
35 Papua New Guinea 9,00
36 Slovenia 9,14
37 El Salvador 9,30
38 France 9,50
39 Spain 9,75
40 Hungary 10,00
41 Ghana 11,00
42 South Africa 12,00
- Botswana 12,00
44 South Korea 12,67
45 Comoros 13,00
- Taiwan 13,00
47 United States of America 14,00
- Argentina 14,00
- Romania 14,00
50 Latvia 15,00
- Trinidad and Tobago 15,00
52 Haiti 15,67
53 Moldova 16,00
54 Hong-Kong 17,00
- Mauritius 17,00
- Samoa 17,00
57 United States of America (extra-territorial) 19,00
58 Malta 19,50
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 19,50
- Guyana 19,50
61 Italy 19,67
62 Central African Republic 20,00
63 Lesotho 21,00
- Sierra Leone 21,00
- Tonga 21,00
66 Mozambique 21,50
67 Mauritania 22,20
68 Croatia 23,33
- Burkina Faso 23,33
70 Bhutan 24,00
- Greece 24,00
72 Nicaragua 24,33
73 Maldives 25,00
- Seychelles 25,00
75 Guinea-Bissau 26,00
- Senegal 26,00
77 Armenia 27,00
78 Kuwait 28,00
79 Togo 28,50
80 Serbia 29,00
- Bulgaria 29,00
- Chile 29,00
- Paraguay 29,00
84 Kenya 29,50
- Madagascar 29,50
86 Guinea 30,00
- Kosovo 30,00
- Timor-Leste 30,00
- Zambia 30,00
90 Congo 30,38
91 Benin 31,00
92 Israel (Israeli territory) 31,25
93 Lebanon 31,50
94 Macedonia 31,67
95 Dominican Republic 33,25
96 Albania 34,44
97 Cameroon 35,00
- Guatemala 35,00
99 Brazil 35,33
100 Mongolia 35,75
101 Gabon 36,50
102 Cyprus (North) 37,00
103 Chad 37,67
104 Ecuador 38,00
- Georgia 38,00
106 Nepal 38,75
107 Montenegro 39,00
108 Bolivia 40,00
- Kyrgyzstan 40,00
110 Liberia 40,50
111 South Sudan 41,25 nc
112 United Arab Emirates 45,00
113 Panama 45,67
114 Qatar 46,00
115 Peru 51,25
116 Ukraine 54,00
117 Cambodia 55,00
- Fiji 55,00
- Oman 55,00
- Venezuela 55,00
- Zimbabwe 55,00
122 Algeria 56,00
- Tajikistan 56,00
- Malaysia 56,00
125 Brunei 56,20
126 Nigeria 56,40
127 Ethiopia 56,60
128 Jordan 56,80
129 Bangladesh 57,00
130 Burundi 57,75
131 India 58,00
132 Angola 58,43
133 Israel (extra-territorial) 59,00
134 Tunisia 60,25
135 Singapore 61,00
- Honduras 61,00
137 Thailand 61,50
138 Morocco 63,29
139 Uganda 64,00
140 Philippines 64,50
141 Gambia 65,50
142 Russia 66,00
143 Colombia 66,50
144 Swaziland 67,00
145 Democratic Republic of Congo 67,67
146 Indonesia 68,00
- Malawi 68,00
148 Turkey 70,00
149 Mexico 72,67
150 Afghanistan 74,00
151 Pakistan 75,00
152 Iraq 75,36
153 Palestinian Territories 76,00
154 Kazakhstan 77,50
- Libya 77,50
156 Rwanda 81,00
157 Uzbekistan 83,00
158 Saudi Arabia 83,25
159 Côte d’Ivoire 83,50
- Djibouti 83,50
161 Equatorial Guinea 86,00
162 Azerbaijan 87,25
163 Sri Lanka 87,50
164 Somalia 88,33
165 Laos 89,00
166 Egypt 97,50
167 Cuba 98,83
168 Belarus 99,00
169 Burma 100,00
170 Sudan 100,75
171 Yemen 101,00
172 Vietnam 114,00
173 Bahrain 125,00
174 China 136,00
175 Iran 136,60
176 Syria 138,00
177 Turkmenistan 140,67
178 North Korea 141,00
179 Eritrea 142,00

Download the full version








5月3日是聯合國訂定的「世界新聞自由日」,美國「自由之家」(Freedom House)特別公布了2011年新聞自由報告(Freedom of the Press);台灣的評分為25,仍被列為新聞自由國家,不過排名卻持續下滑,為全球第48名。

「自由之家」是美國政府提供資金所設立的非政府組織,專針對民主、政治自由及人權方面做研究;他們會以「美國的價值標準」,對全球各國進行自由程度的評估。

在2011年新聞自由報告中,全球新聞自由普遍下降,其中以拉丁美洲、東歐及前蘇聯共和國等最為明顯。台灣排名自2008年起逐年退步,由全球32名降至48名;自由之家指出,公視的董監事爭議、置入性行銷問題,以及對政黨報導的兩極化,是評分降低的主因。

不過台灣在亞太地區中算是「表現優異」的,南韓已從新聞自由國家轉變成「部分自由」,泰國則從部分自由變成「不自由」;此外,緬甸、北韓也持續被認定為「新聞最不自由」的2個國家,而中國大陸的評分仍然不佳,被歸列在新聞不自由國家。

在2011年的評比中,新聞自由度第一名為芬蘭,評分為10,第二名是挪威及瑞典,分數皆為11;至於全球新聞最不自由的10個國家,有白俄羅斯、緬甸、古巴、赤道幾內亞、厄立特里亞、伊朗、利比亞、北韓、土庫曼斯坦和烏茲別克。


Freedom House lowers Taiwan’s press ranking

LESS FREE:The nation has fallen five places in the world rankings since 2008 and DPP legislators were quick to link the decline with President Ma Ying-jeou’s taking office

By William Lowther, Shih Hsiu-chuan and Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporters in WASHINGTON and TAIPEI

Taiwan continued to drop down the list of countries with a free press, a new global study on press freedom shows.

In a survey released on Monday by the Washington-based think tank Freedom House, Taiwan ranked 48th in the world in press freedom last year. It ranked 47th in 2009 and 43rd in 2008.

The nation scored a total of 24 negative points compared with 23 in 2009 and 20 in each of the previous three years.

On a sliding scale, the fewer points a country scores, the freer its press is judged to be in the Freedom of the Press 2011 report.

In the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan now ranks seventh, behind Palau, New Zealand, the Marshall Islands, Australia, Japan and Micronesia. As recently as 2007, it was ranked fourth in the region.

“Some journalists [in Taiwan] voiced fears that press freedom was backsliding in 2010,” the report said.

“A growing trend of marketing disguised as news reports, a proposed legal amendment that would limit descriptions of crime and violence in the media, and licensing obstacles all contributed to these concerns,” it said.

China could be playing a role in Taiwan’s decline, the report said.

“As commercial ties between Taiwan and mainland China deepened in 2010 with the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, press freedom advocates raised concerns that media owners and some journalists were whitewashing news about China to protect their own financial interests,” it said.

“Critics perceived Beijing’s influence in a column that ran on June 4 in the Want Daily newspaper. The column, which commemorated historical events on both sides of the Taiwan Straits [sic], failed to mention the military crackdown on protesters in Beijing on that date in 1989. The China Times Group, the parent of Want Daily, is owned by Tsai Eng-meng [蔡衍明], a businessman with significant commercial interests in mainland China,” the report said.

The report said press freedom in Taiwan had been “hard won” and that journalists were alarmed by a proposal to amend the Children and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法).

“Journalists and press freedom advocates raised concerns that the law could be loosely interpreted to limit a broad range of legitimate reporting,” the report said.

It also said that some critics “questioned the fairness” of the broadcast licensing process.

“The National Communications Commission, which is tasked with awarding licenses, came under fire for setting roadblocks in the path of several media ventures,” it said.

“The commission repeatedly denied requests by Next Media, the parent of top-grossing news publications in Hong Kong and Taiwan, to launch a cable TV station. In rejecting the application, the Taiwanese regulatory body cited its doubts that Next TV would ‘fulfill the social responsibility’ expected of a broadcaster, an explanation that commentators noted was subjective and open to broad interpretation,” it said.

Freedom House said disputes continued to plague the Public Television Service, including one in which the president and executive vice president were dismissed.

“Their removals sparked concerns about government interference and the public television’s neutrality,” it said.

Freedom House said the issue of “embedded marketing,” or advertising passing off as news, came to the forefront in December when Dennis Huang (黃哲斌), a veteran reporter at the Chinese-language China Times, resigned in protest over the proliferation of paid -advertising masquerading as news reports in which both big business and government “buy positive coverage.”