And you know, we'll consider how similar situations might be viewed and handled in more established democracies.

你知道，我們會考慮在更成熟的民主國家如何看待和處理類似情況。

Yeah, because that's the thing that really gets you thinking, right?

是啊，因為這才是真正讓你思考的東西，對嗎？

Like, how would this play out in, say, the U.S. or the U.K.?

比如說，這在美國或英國會如何發展？

Exactly.

沒錯。

So let's dive into this transcript.

那麼，讓我們來看看這份記錄稿吧。

Okay.

好的

So Huang Guochang, he starts his speech by really emphasizing Taiwanese identity and this core principle that in a democracy, the people hold the ultimate power.

是以，黃國昌在演講一開始就強調了臺灣的身份認同，以及 "在民主國家，人民掌握最終權力 "這一核心原則。

Right.

對

It's like setting the stage.

這就像搭建舞臺。

Yeah.

是啊

It's a strong opening that sets the stage for his criticisms of the current administration.

這是一個強有力的開場，為他責備現任政府奠定了基礎。

And it's smart because he's appealing to a shared sense of identity and democratic values before he launches into his critique.

這很聰明，因為他在開始批判之前，就在呼籲一種共同的認同感和民主價值觀。

Exactly.

沒錯。

And then he quickly pivots to criticizing the DPP.

然後，他又迅速轉向責備民進黨。

Yeah, he doesn't hold back, does he?

是啊，他從不隱瞞，不是嗎？

He basically argues that the DPP has become what it once opposed.

他的基本論點是，民進黨已經變成了它曾經反對的東西。

Right.

對

So he's suggesting this disconnect between their steady commitment to democracy and their actions in power. And he points to this belief within the DPP that, you know, once they're in power, they shouldn't be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

是以，他是在暗示他們對民主的堅定承諾與執政行動之間的脫節。 他還指出，民進黨內部認為，一旦他們掌權，就不應該受到同樣程度的監督。

Yeah.

是啊

Like they're above it all.

好像他們高高在上似的。

Right.

對

And that there shouldn't be this rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of how taxpayer money is being spent.

議會不應該對納稅人的錢是如何花的進行嚴格審查。

Right.

對

And a key part of this critique is the idea that the government might be using public funds to influence public opinion through favorable media outlets.

這種責備的一個關鍵部分是，政府可能在利用公共資金通過有利的媒體管道影響公眾輿論。

Yeah.

是啊

It's like using the people's money to control what they see and hear.

這就像是用人民的錢來控制他們的所見所聞。

Right.

對

And to illustrate this misuse of public funds, he gives some specific examples.

為了說明這種濫用公共資金的行為，他舉了一些具體的例子。

Like what?

比如說？

Well, he mentions the Employment Security Fund, which he claims was used for things like the labor minister's photo sessions and extravagant office decorations for a labor development agency head. So using public money for personal gain, basically.

他提到了就業保障基金，聲稱該基金被用於勞工部長的攝影會和勞工發展機構負責人的奢華辦公室裝飾等。 基本上就是用公款謀取私利。

Right.

對

And he also alleges that these funds were channeled to support pro-DPP media organizations like Sanli and FTV.

他還聲稱，這些資金被用於支持親民進黨的媒體機構，如三立和 FTV。

Hmm.

嗯

That's pretty serious.

這很嚴重。

It is.

就是這樣。

And what's striking is how he directly challenges President Lai Ching-te and Premier Cho Jong-tae demanding transparency about the whereabouts of these funds.

引人注目的是，他直接挑戰賴清德總統和趙鍾泰總理，要求這些資金的去向透明化。

Yeah.

是啊

He even uses that line, is this Lai Ching-te's money?

他甚至用了那句話：這是賴清德的錢嗎？

Is this Cho Jong-tae's money?

這是 Cho Jong-tae 的錢嗎？

It's a very pointed way to remind everyone that this is public money we're talking about. And this then leads into his broader criticism of budget oversight. He argues that in any real democracy, the parliament must have the power to scrutinize the budget.

他用非常尖銳的方式提醒大家，我們談論的是公共資金。 這就引出了他對預算監督的更廣泛的責備。 他認為，在任何真正的民主制度中，議會必須有權審查預算。

Which makes sense, right?

這說得通，對吧？

I mean, how else can you hold the government accountable for how they're spending taxpayer money?

我的意思是，你還能怎樣讓政府對如何使用納稅人的錢負責呢？

Exactly.

沒錯。

And to emphasize this point, he compares Taiwan to China and North Korea.

為了強調這一點，他將臺灣與中國和北韓相提並論。

Oh, wow.

哦，哇

So he's really drawing a line in the sand there.

所以，他真的是在畫地為牢。

He is.

他是。

He's essentially saying that resisting scrutiny of government spending is undemocratic.

他實質上是在說，抵制對政府開支的審查是不民主的。

That's a pretty bold statement.

這是一個非常大膽的聲明。

It is.

就是這樣。

And he takes it further by arguing that the DPP, a party that historically championed democracy, now allegedly opposes any meaningful questioning or oversight of government spending.

他還進一步指出，民進黨是一個歷史上擁護民主的政黨，現在卻據稱反對對政府開支進行任何有意義的質詢或監督。

So he's accusing them of hypocrisy, basically.

所以，他基本上是在指責他們虛偽。

Exactly.

沒錯。

And he presents it as this fundamental betrayal of their original ideals.

他認為這從根本上背叛了他們最初的理想。

It's a pretty strong accusation.

這是一個相當強烈的指控。

It is.

就是這樣。

And then he moves on to the issue of increased government spending.

接著，他談到了增加政府開支的問題。

OK.

好的。

He says that the central government's total budget has grown from about $2 trillion NT in 2017, when Tsai Ing-wen first took office, to around $2.924 trillion NT currently.

他說，中央政府的預算總額已從 2017 年蔡英文剛上任時的約 2 萬億元新臺幣增長到目前的約 2.924 萬億元新臺幣。

So an increase of almost 50 percent.

是以，增幅接近 50%。

Right.

對

And he asks a simple but important question.

他提出了一個簡單而重要的問題。

Has this increase in spending led to a corresponding 50 percent improvement in public services?

支出的增加是否使公共服務相應改善了 50%？

Or is it just a sign of fiscal irresponsibility?

或者這只是對財政不負責任的表現？

Exactly.

沒錯。

Or maybe a misallocation of resources.

也可能是資源分配不當。

Yeah.

是啊

It's a question that every government should be asking themselves. Then he turns his attention to the defense budget, another area that has seen increased spending.

這是每個政府都應該捫心自問的問題。 然後，他將目光轉向國防預算，這是另一個支出增加的領域。

OK.

好的。

He mentions the figures going from about $320 billion NT in 2017 to around $470 billion NT currently.

他提到的數字從 2017 年的約 3 200 億新臺幣到目前的約 4 700 億新臺幣。

So a significant increase there as well.

是以，增幅也很大。

Right.

對

And he directly addresses the accusation that the opposition is against defense spending.

他直接回應了反對派反對國防開支的指責。

By pointing out the actual increase.

指出實際增長。

Exactly.

沒錯。

He's saying, look, the money is there, but is it being used effectively?

他是說，錢是有了，但是否得到了有效利用？

Right.

對

It's not about opposing defense spending in principle.

這與原則上反對國防開支無關。

It's about accountability and making sure the money is being well spent.

這關乎問責制，關乎確保錢花得其所。

Exactly.

沒錯。

And this leads into a very serious allegation.

這就引出了一個非常嚴重的指控。

What's that?

那是什麼？

The alleged procurement of substandard bulletproof vests from China.

據稱從中國採購了不合格的防彈背心。

Whoa.

哇哦

That's a huge accusation, especially given the current political climate.

這是一個巨大的指控，尤其是考慮到當前的政治氣候。

It is.

就是這樣。

And he claims that the head of Little Ing's Free Association was connected to the company involved.

他還聲稱，小英自由協會的負責人與相關公司有聯繫。

So suggesting a possible conflict of interest.

這說明可能存在利益衝突。

Right.

對

And he emphasizes that no one face consequences because of the statute of limitations.

他還強調，沒有人會因為訴訟時效而面臨後果。

Which is a whole other issue.

這是另一個問題。

It is.

就是這樣。

And he really highlights the contradiction with the DPP's resist China, protect Taiwan stance.

他確實凸顯了與民進黨抵制中國、保護臺灣立場之間的矛盾。

Right.

對

How can you be so vehemently against China and then allegedly buy faulty equipment from them for your own soldiers?

你們怎麼能如此強烈地反對中國，卻又聲稱要為自己的阿兵哥從中國購買有問題的裝備？

Exactly.

沒錯。

It's a pretty damning accusation.

這是一個相當嚴重的指控。

It is.

就是這樣。

And it raises serious questions about the government's priorities.

這也讓人對政府的優先事項產生了嚴重的疑問。

Absolutely.

當然可以。

So then he moves on to a case involving Chen Shih-tzu and the National Development Fund.

於是，他轉到了涉及陳士榘和國家發展基金的案件。

OK.

好的。

What happened there?

那裡發生了什麼？

So this guy Chen Shih-tzu, he wanted to use 13 billion NT from the National Development Fund.

於是，這個叫陳士榘的傢伙就想從國家發展基金中動用 130 億新臺幣。

Which is a lot of money.

這可是一大筆錢。

It is to buy a garment factory in China. And what's interesting is that the Ma Ying-jeou administration rejected this application three times.

是在中國購買一家制衣廠。 有趣的是，馬英九政府曾三次拒絕這一申請。

Why?

為什麼？

Because they were concerned about the real purpose of the investment and the potential for Taiwanese companies to be taken over.

因為他們擔心投資的真正目的以及臺灣公司被收購的可能性。

So they were being cautious.

所以他們很謹慎。

Right.

對

But then Wang Guochong claims that after the DPP came into power, the investment went through. Yeah.

但汪國湧又說，民進黨執政後，投資就通過了。 是啊

And he says the National Development Fund even contributed 1.5 billion NT of their own money.

他說，國家發展基金甚至拿出了自己的 15 億新臺幣。

Wow.

哇

So they were actively supporting this investment.

是以，他們積極支持這項投資。

It seems that way.

看起來是這樣。

And he claims that this led to speculative activity in the stock market and ultimately losses for Taiwanese investors.

他聲稱，這導致了股票市場的投機活動，最終使臺灣投資者蒙受損失。

Ouch.

哎喲

So not only was there a potential conflict of interest, but it also hurt Taiwanese investors.

是以，這不僅存在潛在的利益衝突，也損害了臺灣投資者的利益。

Right.

對

And to top it off, Chen Shih-tzu has purportedly fled the country.

更糟糕的是，陳士榘據說已經逃往國外。

So who's being held accountable?

那麼，誰該為此負責呢？

That's the question Wang Guochong raises.

這就是王國衝提出的問題。

He wants to know what's happening with the DPP officials who were involved, including former Secretary General Hung Yau-fu and the current Secretary General, Kong Ming-hsin.

他想知道與此有關的民進黨官員的情況，包括前祕書長洪有福和現任祕書長孔明鑫。

It sounds like he's implying that political connections might have shielded them from scrutiny.

聽起來他是在暗示，政治關係可能會使他們免受審查。

It certainly seems that way.

看起來確實如此。

It's a classic case of who you know, not what you know.

這是一個典型的 "你知道誰，而不是你知道什麼 "的案例。

Right.

對

And it raises questions about fairness and accountability in the system.

這也引發了對該系統公平性和問責制的質疑。

OK.

好的。

So what's the next case he brings up?

那麼，他提出的下一個案例是什麼？

The case of Scientist Logistics.

科學家物流公司的案例。

Scientist Logistics.

科學家後勤。

What's that?

那是什麼？

So it was this profitable state-owned enterprise established to support Taiwan's high-tech industry.

就是這樣一家盈利的國有企業，為支持臺灣的高科技產業而成立。

OK.

好的。

And the shocking allegation here is that this company was sold to a firm controlled by what the DPP themselves have called red capital.

而令人震驚的指控是，這家公司被賣給了一家由民進黨自己所謂的紅色資本控制的公司。

Red capital meaning?

紅色資本的含義？

Meaning capital from or closely affiliated with China.

意指來自中國或與中國有密切聯繫的資本。

Whoa.

哇哦

That's a pretty big deal.

這可是件大事。

It is, especially given the current tensions between Taiwan and China.

的確如此，尤其是考慮到當前臺灣和中國大陸之間的緊張關係。

Yeah, it seems to contradict their whole resist China stance.

是的，這似乎與他們抵制中國的整個立場相矛盾。

Exactly.

沒錯。

And he claims that this share transfer was orchestrated within the DPP's own headquarters with then Secretary General Hung Yau-fu overseeing it.

他還聲稱，這次股權轉讓是在民進黨總部內部精心策劃的，由時任祕書長洪有福負責監督。

So again, this blurring of lines between party and state.

是以，黨和國家之間的界限再次變得模糊。

Right.

對

And he mentions that this has been legally confirmed.

他還提到，這已經得到了法律上的確認。

So it's not just hearsay.

所以這不僅僅是道聽途說。

No.

不

It's a matter of public record.

這是公開的記錄。

And he points out that the DPP was initially defensive about this and then went silent.

他還指出，民進黨最初對此進行了辯解，然後就沉默了。

Which doesn't look good, does it?

這看起來不太好，不是嗎？

No.

不

Kind of suggests they know they messed up.

這表明他們知道自己搞砸了。

OK.

好的。

So who else is on Hung Yau-fu's list?

洪有福的名單上還有誰？

Well, next up is the Taiyan Green Energy case.

接下來是泰安綠色能源案。

Taiyan Green Energy?

大堰綠色能源？

Yeah.

是啊

So this involved the appointment of Chen Xiyu, a close associate of Chen Xu, as the chair of Taiyan Green Energy back in 2017.

於是，這就涉及到了早在 2017 年，陳旭的親信陳錫宇就被任命為泰安綠能的董事長。

Right when the government was really pushing green energy.

就在政府大力推廣綠色能源的時候。

Exactly.

沒錯。

And the accusation is that this guy Chen Xiyu used his insider knowledge to set up a private company that benefited from deals secured under Taiyan Green Energy.

指控稱，陳錫宇利用自己的內幕消息成立了一傢俬人公司，從大堰綠色能源公司的交易中獲益。

So basically using his position for personal gain.

是以，他基本上是在利用職務之便謀取私利。

Right.

對

And the alleged loss to taxpayers is over $860 million NT.

而據稱納稅人的損失超過 8.6 億新臺幣。

Wow.

哇

And who benefited?

誰從中受益？

Wang Guochang claims it was individuals affiliated with the DPP.

王國昌稱這是隸屬於民進黨的個人。

So yet another example of potential corruption.

是以，這又是一個潛在腐敗的例子。

It does seem that way.

看起來確實如此。

These examples are really painting a picture, aren't they?

這些例子真是畫龍點睛，不是嗎？

And before we move on to even more, I mean, what do you think all of this suggests about Taiwan's oversight mechanisms?

在我們繼續討論更多問題之前，我的意思是，你認為這一切對臺灣的監督機制有何啟示？

Well, I think it raises some serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest and this blurring of lines between party interests and public resources.

我認為，這引起了人們對潛在利益衝突以及政黨利益與公共資源之間界限模糊的嚴重關切。

Right.

對

It's like the rules don't apply when you're in power.

當你掌權時，規則就好像不適用了。

Yeah.

是啊

And it makes you wonder how things are done differently in more established democracies.

這不禁讓人好奇，在更成熟的民主國家，事情的處理方式有何不同。

Exactly.

沒錯。

Because you have to imagine that allegations like these would cause a much bigger stir in places like the U.S. or the U.K.

因為你不得不想象，類似的指控在美國或英國等地會引起更大的轟動。

Absolutely.

當然可以。

So let's get back to the transcript.

讓我們回到文字記錄上來。

What's the next case Wang Guochang brings up? The Lixing Optoelectronics case.

王國昌提出的下一個案例是什麼？ 力星光電案。

Lixing Optoelectronics.

力星光電。

Right.

對

This one concerns the establishment of a solar power plant in Kigutainan.

這個項目涉及在 Kigutainan 建立太陽能發電廠。

Solar power plant.

太陽能發電廠。

Yeah.

是啊

And he argues that the area was completely unsuitable for this kind of development.

他認為，該地區完全不適合進行這種開發。

Environmentally unsuitable.

環境不適宜。

Yeah.

是啊

And the main allegation here is that Tainan Mayor Wang Weijie and a central government official Wang Meihua colluded to push this project through despite potential legal issues.

而這裡的主要指控是，臺南市市長王維傑和中央政府官員王美花串通一氣，不顧潛在的法律問題，推動了這一項目。

And why would they do that?

他們為什麼要這麼做？

Well, he claims the owner of Lixing Optoelectronics has ties to the DPP's hawkish faction.

他聲稱力星光電的老闆與民進黨鷹派有聯繫。

And that he gained $9.1 billion NT illegally from this project. $9.1 billion?

他還從這個項目中非法獲得了 91 億新臺幣。91億美元？

That's an insane amount of money.

這是一筆鉅款。

It is.

就是這樣。

And this really reinforces the concerns about conflicts of interest and the need for stronger checks and balances.

這確實加強了人們對利益衝突的擔憂，以及加強制衡的必要性。

Absolutely.

當然。

Because if these allegations are true, it means that people are potentially making a fortune off of projects that are harmful to the environment and possibly even illegal.

因為如果這些指控屬實，就意味著人們有可能從有害環境甚至可能是非法的項目中牟取暴利。

Right.

對

And while prosecutors have filed charges in this case, they're reportedly against a lower level official.

雖然檢察官已對此案提出指控，但據報道，指控的對象是一名級別較低的官員。

While the higher ups get off scot-free.

而高層卻逍遙法外。

Exactly.

沒錯。

Which raises questions about whether there's a reluctance to go after those with real political power.

這不禁讓人懷疑，是否有人不願意對那些擁有真正政治權力的人下手。

It's a classic case of the little guy taking the fall.

這是一個典型的小人物背黑鍋的案例。

And it undermines public trust in the justice system.

這也破壞了公眾對司法系統的信任。

Okay.

好的

What else does Huang Guocheng talk about?

黃國成還說了些什麼？

Well, there's the Panmengan case.

這就是潘門根案件。

So this one involves a solar power plant linked to Panmengan that was basically on the verge of bankruptcy.

是以，這一次涉及的是一家與潘門根有關的太陽能發電廠，該發電廠基本上已瀕臨破產。

Okay.

好的

And the government gave them a subsidy of $3 billion NT. $3 billion?

政府給了他們 30 億新臺幣的補貼。30 億美元？

Why would they do that if the company was already failing?

如果公司已經倒閉，他們為什麼還要這麼做？

Well, that's the thing.

這就是問題所在。

Experts had raised concerns about the company's financial viability before the subsidy was even given.

在獲得補貼之前，專家們就對該公司的財務可行性表示了擔憂。

Just so they ignored expert advice.

就這樣，他們無視專家的建議。

It seems that way.

看起來是這樣。

And to make matters worse, even after this massive injection of public funds, the company continued to lose money.

更糟糕的是，即使在大量公共資金注入之後，該公司仍在繼續虧損。