[國媒] AIT理事:學生占立院民進黨占發言台都非法

看板FuMouDiscuss作者duolon (你太快否定自己的全部了)時間10年前 (2014/03/30 07:28)推噓-7(5推 12噓 9→)

留言26則, 22人參與討論串1/1

http://ctee.com.tw/LiveNews/Content.aspx?nid=20140329003585-260401&ch=ex http://0rz.tw/Sxsfj http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-333-440226-1.shtml 來源應該是工商時報　　著名的「尼爾森報導」今天刊出台海議題專家卜道維（David Brown）的觀點。卜道維毫不客氣的指出，不論台灣學生霸占立法院，或是民進黨霸占發言台，都是非法行為；如果在美國，是不會容許的。他認為這是民進黨的選舉手法。　　尼爾森報導（Nelson Report）昨天刊登民進黨立委反服貿的公開信，接著在今天刊登卜道維的回應。卜道維是約翰霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院（SAIS）教授，曾經做過外交官，能說流利國語。他另一個身份是美國在台協會（AIT）理事。　　卜道維寫道，民進黨的說法「略去了有關服貿爭議的大部份事實，就是民進黨從去年 6月起即反對簽署，並阻撓立法院審議此一協議」；去年秋天開始的立院特別會期，民進黨「持續干擾有關此一協議之討論」；到3月17日的前一星期，民進黨一再阻止服貿協議進入立院委員會的審議，這應該就是何以國民黨強力在3月18日把協議由委員會進入院會討論。　　他寫道，學生的反應這麼快，當晚就占據了立法院，令人稱奇。「國民黨指控民進黨策動此事，很多人相信此一指控。據報導，一些民進黨政治人物當晚出現在現場；民進黨也在次日對學生的行動背書，並鼓勵全體黨員支持學生的非法占據」。　　他表示，民進黨的問題在於自己是立法院的少數黨，所以只要涉及關鍵利益，或符合選舉動員的目標，民進黨會用盡一切方法阻止國民黨，「利用這些議題以獲取政治利益」。他說，台灣民主正在轉型，面臨一些挑戰，「有些挑戰是來自民進黨」。　　==================================================================== 　　LOYAL READER COMMENTARY ON BI-KHIM/DPP LETTER in last night's Report....Asia expert and SAIS scholar Dave Brown offers some helpful perspective, followed by a note from the hard-working team at TECRO here in DC: 　　Chris, 　　Thanks for sharing Bi-Khim's open letter. She deserves respect, but this piece is a partisan statement of DPP views on the current crisis in the LY.That's her job, of course. 　　You and others will note that it omits much of the story concerning the STA, which the DPP has opposed from its signing last June. She conveniently omits the DPP's record of obstruction of LY consideration of the agreement. 　　That began in the special LY session last fall and continued with dilatory handling of forums on the agreement. 　　The week before March 17, the DPP had repeatedly prevented the planned article by article review of the STA at the LY committee level. That obstructionism was the proximate incentive for the KMT to ram through a decision moving the STA from committee to plenary consideration on Mar. 18. 　　It is remarkable that the students reacted so quickly that same evening to occupy the LY. 　　The KMT has accused the DPP of instigating this action, an accusation that many believe Unnamed DPP politicians were reportedly on the scene later that evening and the party endorsed the action the following day, and then encouraged all its members to support the students' illegal occupation. 　　A DPP poll published a few days earlier had indicated that a plurality of DPP members (40%) were dissatisfied with the party's knee-jerky opposition to every step forward in cross-strait relations. So rather than have the DPP LY caucus responsible for continuing to block consideration of the STA wasn't it in the DPP's interest to have students play that role? 　　Bi-Khim portrays this as a struggle for democracy. It's really another fundamental clash of approaches toward the mainland and toward Taiwan's future.But if its about democracy, is the DPP's repeated physical blocking of LY action democratic? 　　The DPP's problem is that the KMT, divided as it is, has a LY majority, and the DPP will go to whatever lengths are necessary to block the majority when their key interests are involved or when it suits the DPP's election mobilization goals to exploit issues for political advantage. 　　I suspect that the fall election is a key consideration in how the party is handling the issue. In this country we would not permit such obstruction to occur in the Congress, and we would not view the DPP's obstruction tactics as legitimate democratic action. 　　Taiwan is a democracy in transition. It faces challenges and some of those challenges come from the DPP. 　　Dave -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 180.176.105.208 ※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/FuMouDiscuss/M.1396135684.A.A96.html

→

KillerMoDo

03/30 07:29, , 1^F

03/30 07:29, 1^F

→

todaybear

03/30 07:29, , 2^F

03/30 07:29, 2^F

→

gunng

03/30 07:31, , 3^F

03/30 07:31, 3^F