Update: I didn't know that the DPP has it translated:
DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen's 2011 New Year Statement
---------
DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen's 2011 new year wish, 做一個相信土地與人民的政黨：寫給2011年的民進黨, to DPP members. It delivers her messages on two key issues: sovereignty and economics. Translated below with my highlights.
如果現在還有人在懷疑民進黨是否能重新站起來，我會這樣回答：過去兩年幾次選舉的結果，已經給了明確的答案。人民已經恢復了對民進黨的信心，讓我們可以跟國民黨分庭抗禮。
If any still has a doubt whether the DPP could stand up again, I would respond: the election results in the past two years already provided the answer. We have regained people's trust, which allows us to compete with the KMT head to head.
民進黨是在戰後台灣，第一個從這塊土地上萌芽出來的政黨；從創黨那一天起，就宣示要跟人民大眾站在一起。台灣是一塊受過傷卻仍然滿懷希望的土地，也是一塊強權環伺卻始終堅持要作自己主人的土地。土地上的人民，有共同的過去，以及未來的使命。相信土地，相信人民，更要相信自己所代表的價值，這對2011年的民進黨，是最重要的事。
The DPP is the first ever political party that was spawn from this land (Taiwan) after the war (WWII). It aims at standing with the people since the day of establishment. Taiwan is a land that has suffered but is filled with hope. It is also a land that is encircled by super powers yet insists in being a master of her own. The people in this land share the common past as well as the future mission. Believing in the land, believing in the people and, especially, believing in the value that we represent for. These are the most important tasks for the DPP in 2011.
土地與人民，才是國家的根，我們始終相信是如此。因此當執政黨開始熱鬧非凡地慶祝「建國百年」時，我們實在不必冷嘲熱諷，反而可以邀請台灣人民一起來思考和檢視，每個人內心對自己國家的認識。其實，與其去爭論九二共識、一中各表、各表一中這些名詞，還不如直接去問問人民，你心中的國家是什麼？任何人都可以毫不猶豫地回答你，答案是台灣，或者是中華民國，但是這兩種答案背後都有一個簡單的意思，就是我的國家是這塊土地，她不屬於也不同於對岸的中華人民共和國。
It has always been our belief that the land and the people are the root of a country. Therefore, when the ruling party (KMT) starts celebrating in hustle and bustle the 100-year anniversary (of the founding of ROC), we don't have to be cynical. Instead, we can take this chance to ask all the people in Taiwan to ponder and review what we have in mind about our country. In fact, instead of arguing for jargon like "the 1992 concensus", "one China, with each side having its own interpretation", "different interpretations for one-China", we would rather ask the people directly --- what is your country in your mind? Anybody can answer that quickly, be it Taiwan, be it Republic of China. Hidden behind both of these two answers is a simple idea - this land is my country. It does not belong to or equivalent to the People Republic of China across the strait.
所以我一直不理解，為什麼馬總統最近一直在問問題，彷彿他對這個國家現在和未來的定位，還是不怎麼確定。其實，我們有這片土地，有2300萬人民，有走過漫漫改革長路所建立的民主體制；對於一個總統而言，投票給你的人在哪裡，你的國家就在哪裡。
Therefore, I have been puzzling why president Ma kept asking questions (about the fabricated "1992 consensus" saying that Taiwan and China have reached a consensus on the sovereignty of Taiwan), as though he is not quite sure about the current and future status of this country. In reality, we have this land, we have 23 million people, and we have a democratic system that is a fruit of long and slow innovation. To a president, it should have been clear that wherever your voters are, wherever your country is.
我們跟國民黨最大的不同就在於，國民黨認為「沒有中華民國就沒有台灣」，而我們卻相信「沒有台灣就沒有中華民國」。簡單說，他們膜拜的是「政權與統治者」，而我們信仰的是「土地與人民」。這裡的區別，在於我們堅持台灣的優先性，而我相信我們是站在多數人民的這一邊。
The biggest difference between the KMT and our party is that the KMT argues "Taiwan can't exist without the ROC", but we argues "the ROC can't exist without Taiwan." Simply put, the KMT worships "the regime and the ruler," yet we believe in "the land and the people." The line that makes the difference is that we insists Taiwan is our priority, and we believe that we are on the side with the majority of people.
1949年中華民國來到台灣，成為這塊土地歷史的一部份，我們瞭解並且尊重這個史實，也相信未來唯有民主制度，才能夠去變更這個存在了六十多年的體制。但人民現在真正需要的，不是藍綠在國家意識上的僵持對決，也不是花大錢去營造一個和土地脫節的認同感；人民期待看到的是，從現在起，不分藍綠的國民，能夠共同在沒有任何政治框架的前提下，自由地創造與選擇我們的未來。
The ROC government came to Taiwan In 1949 and became part of the history of this land. We understand and respect it as a historical fact. We also believe that the only way to change this sixty some year system is by way of a democratic process. But what the people really need at this moment is not the confrontation deadlock on nationality ideology between the green and blue camps; nor is to spend large amount of budgets to create an identity that is so detached from the land. What the people expect is that all people, no matter green or blue, have the free will to create and choose our future without a premise of certain political frame.
2010年，對絕大多數台灣人民來說，還是辛苦的一年。GDP恢復成長，消費也較為活絡，可是同一時間，物價也在上漲，最重要的，絕大多數人民的薪水與收入卻沒有成長。這代表了我們的經濟發展進入了一個新的模式，一個財富分配的不均等的發展型態，所以有人是開開心心享受復甦的果實，卻有人仍在寒冬裡與子女淚眼相望。這個模式繼續走下去，貧富差距、城鄉差距的現象會更加惡劣。
For most of the people in Taiwan, the 2010 was still a painstaking year. The GDP resumed growing, the consumption was more active. But at the same time, the living costs increased without corresponding increases on salary and income. It signifies a new model of our economic development, a model in which the wealth distribution is unbalanced. Therefore, while some enjoy the fruit of economic recovery happily, others can only share tears with their kids in the cold winter. Developing with this model, the gap between the rich and the poor, as well as the gap between the city and the country side, will be further enlarged.
2011年，民進黨的另一使命，就是要提出一個有別於目前國民黨的新經濟思維，來抵擋貧富差距的趨勢繼續在社會裡惡化。當國民黨自滿於一時GDP成長的數字裡，我們要走進人民的生活中，實際關心他們的就業與收入。數字再怎麼高，只要一般人民感受不到就是空的。民進黨要感受人民的感受，要為那些沒有經濟資本、也沒有社會資本的多數人民，構築一個安心的未來。民進黨是為這些人存在，我們每天都要自我提醒，如果沒有民進黨，這些人民的未來誰來為他們思考？這是我們創黨的初衷，也是此時此刻的我們必須捍衛的價值。
Therefore, another mission of the DPP's in 2011 is to offer a new economic idea different from that of the KMT's in order to resist the trend of increasing wealth gap that is deteriorating the society. For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society. When the KMT is satisfied with the number of the GDP growth, we want to walk into the lives of the people, to care for their jobs and incomes. No matter how high the apparent number is, it is empty as long as the people can't feel it. The DPP wants to to be affected by the people's experiences, to establish a secure future for the majority who don't have neither the economic capital nor the social resources. The DPP is for those people, so we have to remind ourselves everyday: if the DPP is not there for them, who will care for their future? This is the original intention of our party, and is the value we have to guard now.
2010年已過去，我們懷抱著感恩又走過了一年，感恩人民對民進黨的支持與鞭策，寬容與期待。民進黨不應該讓台灣人民等待太久，要做該做的事，做讓人民感動的事，在新的一年，全力以赴。
The 2010 has passed. We walked through it with appreciation, appreciating the support, the criticism, the lenience and the expectation that the people gave. The DPP should not let the people wait for too long. We need to put on full gear for what needs to be done and what touches the people.
If any still has a doubt whether the DPP could stand up again, I would respond: the election results in the past two years already provided the answer. We have regained people's trust, which allows us to compete with the KMT head to head.
民進黨是在戰後台灣，第一個從這塊土地上萌芽出來的政黨；從創黨那一天起，就宣示要跟人民大眾站在一起。台灣是一塊受過傷卻仍然滿懷希望的土地，也是一塊強權環伺卻始終堅持要作自己主人的土地。土地上的人民，有共同的過去，以及未來的使命。相信土地，相信人民，更要相信自己所代表的價值，這對2011年的民進黨，是最重要的事。
The DPP is the first ever political party that was spawn from this land (Taiwan) after the war (WWII). It aims at standing with the people since the day of establishment. Taiwan is a land that has suffered but is filled with hope. It is also a land that is encircled by super powers yet insists in being a master of her own. The people in this land share the common past as well as the future mission. Believing in the land, believing in the people and, especially, believing in the value that we represent for. These are the most important tasks for the DPP in 2011.
土地與人民，才是國家的根，我們始終相信是如此。因此當執政黨開始熱鬧非凡地慶祝「建國百年」時，我們實在不必冷嘲熱諷，反而可以邀請台灣人民一起來思考和檢視，每個人內心對自己國家的認識。其實，與其去爭論九二共識、一中各表、各表一中這些名詞，還不如直接去問問人民，你心中的國家是什麼？任何人都可以毫不猶豫地回答你，答案是台灣，或者是中華民國，但是這兩種答案背後都有一個簡單的意思，就是我的國家是這塊土地，她不屬於也不同於對岸的中華人民共和國。
It has always been our belief that the land and the people are the root of a country. Therefore, when the ruling party (KMT) starts celebrating in hustle and bustle the 100-year anniversary (of the founding of ROC), we don't have to be cynical. Instead, we can take this chance to ask all the people in Taiwan to ponder and review what we have in mind about our country. In fact, instead of arguing for jargon like "the 1992 concensus", "one China, with each side having its own interpretation", "different interpretations for one-China", we would rather ask the people directly --- what is your country in your mind? Anybody can answer that quickly, be it Taiwan, be it Republic of China. Hidden behind both of these two answers is a simple idea - this land is my country. It does not belong to or equivalent to the People Republic of China across the strait.
所以我一直不理解，為什麼馬總統最近一直在問問題，彷彿他對這個國家現在和未來的定位，還是不怎麼確定。其實，我們有這片土地，有2300萬人民，有走過漫漫改革長路所建立的民主體制；對於一個總統而言，投票給你的人在哪裡，你的國家就在哪裡。
Therefore, I have been puzzling why president Ma kept asking questions (about the fabricated "1992 consensus" saying that Taiwan and China have reached a consensus on the sovereignty of Taiwan), as though he is not quite sure about the current and future status of this country. In reality, we have this land, we have 23 million people, and we have a democratic system that is a fruit of long and slow innovation. To a president, it should have been clear that wherever your voters are, wherever your country is.
我們跟國民黨最大的不同就在於，國民黨認為「沒有中華民國就沒有台灣」，而我們卻相信「沒有台灣就沒有中華民國」。簡單說，他們膜拜的是「政權與統治者」，而我們信仰的是「土地與人民」。這裡的區別，在於我們堅持台灣的優先性，而我相信我們是站在多數人民的這一邊。
The biggest difference between the KMT and our party is that the KMT argues "Taiwan can't exist without the ROC", but we argues "the ROC can't exist without Taiwan." Simply put, the KMT worships "the regime and the ruler," yet we believe in "the land and the people." The line that makes the difference is that we insists Taiwan is our priority, and we believe that we are on the side with the majority of people.
1949年中華民國來到台灣，成為這塊土地歷史的一部份，我們瞭解並且尊重這個史實，也相信未來唯有民主制度，才能夠去變更這個存在了六十多年的體制。但人民現在真正需要的，不是藍綠在國家意識上的僵持對決，也不是花大錢去營造一個和土地脫節的認同感；人民期待看到的是，從現在起，不分藍綠的國民，能夠共同在沒有任何政治框架的前提下，自由地創造與選擇我們的未來。
The ROC government came to Taiwan In 1949 and became part of the history of this land. We understand and respect it as a historical fact. We also believe that the only way to change this sixty some year system is by way of a democratic process. But what the people really need at this moment is not the confrontation deadlock on nationality ideology between the green and blue camps; nor is to spend large amount of budgets to create an identity that is so detached from the land. What the people expect is that all people, no matter green or blue, have the free will to create and choose our future without a premise of certain political frame.
2010年，對絕大多數台灣人民來說，還是辛苦的一年。GDP恢復成長，消費也較為活絡，可是同一時間，物價也在上漲，最重要的，絕大多數人民的薪水與收入卻沒有成長。這代表了我們的經濟發展進入了一個新的模式，一個財富分配的不均等的發展型態，所以有人是開開心心享受復甦的果實，卻有人仍在寒冬裡與子女淚眼相望。這個模式繼續走下去，貧富差距、城鄉差距的現象會更加惡劣。
For most of the people in Taiwan, the 2010 was still a painstaking year. The GDP resumed growing, the consumption was more active. But at the same time, the living costs increased without corresponding increases on salary and income. It signifies a new model of our economic development, a model in which the wealth distribution is unbalanced. Therefore, while some enjoy the fruit of economic recovery happily, others can only share tears with their kids in the cold winter. Developing with this model, the gap between the rich and the poor, as well as the gap between the city and the country side, will be further enlarged.
2011年，民進黨的另一使命，就是要提出一個有別於目前國民黨的新經濟思維，來抵擋貧富差距的趨勢繼續在社會裡惡化。當國民黨自滿於一時GDP成長的數字裡，我們要走進人民的生活中，實際關心他們的就業與收入。數字再怎麼高，只要一般人民感受不到就是空的。民進黨要感受人民的感受，要為那些沒有經濟資本、也沒有社會資本的多數人民，構築一個安心的未來。民進黨是為這些人存在，我們每天都要自我提醒，如果沒有民進黨，這些人民的未來誰來為他們思考？這是我們創黨的初衷，也是此時此刻的我們必須捍衛的價值。
2010年已過去，我們懷抱著感恩又走過了一年，感恩人民對民進黨的支持與鞭策，寬容與期待。民進黨不應該讓台灣人民等待太久，要做該做的事，做讓人民感動的事，在新的一年，全力以赴。
The 2010 has passed. We walked through it with appreciation, appreciating the support, the criticism, the lenience and the expectation that the people gave. The DPP should not let the people wait for too long. We need to put on full gear for what needs to be done and what touches the people.
Update: Thanks mike (see comment section) for pointing one flaw of my translation, as corrected in the two paragraphs up.
7 comments:
Hi Echo,
Look, I despise the KMT at least as much as you do, but when a leader of the DPP such as Tsai Ing-wen says things like this...
"...the trend of increasing wealth gap that is deteriorating the society."
... it makes me despair on several counts.
First, the meaning of that sort of soundbite is so vague that nobody but her can know precisely what dynamic she is referring to. I tend toward the opinion, which I briefly mentioned on J.Michael Cole's place, that deliberately sloppy and evasive use of language like this is a very bad example to set for the younger generation, since with it, she fails to demonstrate the value of a clear, crisp grasp of concepts and their contextual parameters to understanding social problems.
Second, the content of the remark, such as it is, is redolent of the mistaken tendency often found on the political left to reject the principles on which a free market society must stand. Inequality in wealth would be better expressed as "differences in wealth" since this reflects its' derivation from the fact that people are different from each other in all kinds of ways, e.g. virtue, vice, luck, intelligence etc.
Third, the "deterioration" or "corrosion" of society (i.e. social relations that people freely establish among one another) is not principally caused by differences in wealth at all, but rather by coercion since it is violence, or the threat of violence, that not only entrenches advantage for some at the expense of others, but which also distorts and mangles the processes by which people freely associate with and disassociate from one another.
Until the DPP, like all modern leftist political parties, understand this, they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Please consider alternative points of view, such as that of Beth Haynes - a physician in California who is a web-acquaintance of mine - she blogs very intelligently at "Wealth Is Not The Problem": http://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com
Best,
mike
mike,
The article is my translation, so the wording is my responsibility. There's in fact an official version that I wasn't aware of when I did the translation, in which the paragraph in question is translated as:
For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society.
Comparing to that, and referring back to the original text written in Chinese, it is obvious that my translation is bad. The word "deteriorating," if to be used at all, should have been referring to the gap, not the society.
I've made corrections, and also, put the link to the official piece on top. Thanks, man.
Flagging a translation flaw was not my intent, and your focus on that leaves the other points I made entirely unaddressed and unconsidered.
Hi mike, The DPP didn't make that statement you were targeting at. Your criticism against the DPP was solely based on a wrong translation I made. What should I say, other than the admission of mistake, about criticism against nothingness ?
Taiwan Echo: did you delete the response I gave to your second comment? Am I now banned?
No I didn't. I remember reading it but haven't got time to reply.
But it did disappear, that I have no idea. It happened before when I posted in Michael Cole's blog, where my post got missing. No idea why.
Your comments are very welcome and very helpful. I'll dig it out from my email.
The missping article mike posted on 1/18:
=================================
"Your criticism against the DPP was solely based on a wrong translation I made."
Not so, observe:
Here is the correct translation you presented to me:
"For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society."
My first point about lack of clarity in Tsai's language applies to this very predicate of "resisting" a "worsening wealth gap" irrespective of whether your earlier relative clause should apply or not. It is not clear from "worsening wealth gap" for example whether she is referring to the wealthier cross-section of Taiwanese society becoming richer at a faster rate than that by which the less wealthy can attain, or whether for example, she is referring to the poorest becoming poorer relative either to one or more wealthier cross-sections of society, or relative to some other standard, for example access to the essentials for surviving. And all of that is to leave entirely open the question of what she means by "resisting".
My second point that inequalities in wealth would be better conceived as "differences in wealth" and that political opposition to such differences per se (as implied by her use of "resisting") is misguided - this second point also still applies, since the correct translation you present still contains the phrase "worsening wealth gap", rather than for example "growing wealth gap" or "widening wealth gap".
And yet I think my third point, although you revoke the term "deterioration", also still applies, since clearly the concept of deterioration (or at least something very much like it) is implied by the term "worsening" - if the wealth gap is "worsening" (as distinct from "growing") then surely what is meant is that there are negative social consequences to this, yes? And isn't that, broadly, the meaning of the term "deterioration"?
You are under no obligation to consider the criticisms I am putting to you if you do not want to, but in pointing to translation errors, are you not simply trying to evade my criticisms of the DPP (presumably because it makes you uncomfortable)?
Post a Comment