擺盪在兩岸間博弈賽局的「壓力球」；壓力為兩岸關係潛在危機因子，透過菁英集體腦力激盪，突破台共勢不兩立界線；兩岸關係從軍事恫嚇武戰、拉攏外交擺盪至今，為利搭橋簽訂ECFA圖在世界舞台經濟發球權。 值此，文官躍上國際舞台創兩岸關係新紀元；我國陸委會為兩岸對話窗口，行政院動員所屬部會展開跨域治理架構。國家經貿外交希冀公務員拉抬國際高度與總體經濟廣度，謀國家利益榫接國際市場。 政府引進新公共服務與新公共管理理論雙軌運行，行組織再造之勢，這攸關國家競爭力，考驗公務員角色如何從儀式主義(ritualism)變身為管理者及資源分配者角色，更須背負活化組織、創新發展之責。本研究關心公務員角色在面臨國家利益、組織期待與家庭經營等三方壓力，個體如何管理壓力？又如何擁有足夠的「能力」去「抗壓」、「解壓」甚至是「化壓」？。 本研究藉由個案組織為例，旨揭為組織進化並研究組織吸納壓力變相間關係。組織潛規則經由層級節制建置制度，正向組織效能為軟知識以溝通、休閒為工具，以調和壓力與增強自我效能。意識形態之建置，從老莊思想「圖難為大」啟迪我們立志、勵志；莊子逍遙遊則說「且夫水之積也不厚，則其負大舟也無力；風之積也不厚，則其負大翼也無力。」水不深難以乘舟，壓力是助力激發潛能，效能排除阻力以乘風、大鵬展翅；研究建議組織應樹立價值觀為管理基礎，警鐘式策動公務員滋養自我效能建立遠大目標，須知千里之行始於足下。

By the end of the twentieth century, there were many secessionist groups, but, the move towards Taiwanese secessionism has arguably been the most significant of these. It triggered the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, which resulted in a historical military confrontation between Mainland China and the US. As will be shown, from 1988 to 2000, Lee Teng-hui, as president of Taiwan, manipulated the political Cross-Straits relationship to promote what was ultimately a secessionist policy. This caused Mainland China to react strongly and triggered sharp tension between Taiwan and Mainland China. This thesis considers what motivated Lee Teng-hui to implement a secessionist Cross-Straits policy and why he supported unification while adopting a substantive secessionist policy. It looks at how he was able to instigate Taiwanese hostility towards Mainlanders, to transform the hostility into a sense of Taiwanese national identity and ultimately into Taiwanese secessionist ideology. A historical approach was used in exploring the origins of secessionism, and descriptive and analytical methods to review systematically and comprehensively political developments in the ROC and its civil war, and to study Lee Teng-hui’s life; the national identity of Taiwan and Mainland China; the implementation of Lee Teng-hui’s political Cross-Straits policy; and the reaction of Mainland China. The study showed that the main cause of Taiwanese secessionism was ethnic conflict between Taiwanese and Mainlanders. It originated from the 228 Incident of 1947, in which Mainlander-led troops slaughtered many Taiwanese. Soon after, the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan from Mainland China, and many Taiwanese (including Mainlanders) were killed during the State of Emergency in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan in its original central government form, the Mainlander élite occupied key positions in the government during the 1950s and 1960s. It resulted in unfair power-sharing for Taiwanese, and caused the Taiwanese élite to believe that they had to establish their own government (nation). Lee Teng-hui had participated in the CCP and had been under political surveillance by the Mainlander-led government for over twenty years. He weathered these political difficulties, but by reasonable inference, there was a close relationship between the political oppression by the Mainlander-led government and his secessionist political Cross-Straits policy. Because Taiwanese residents were indoctrinated by Chiang Ching-kuo and his father, Chiang Kai-shek’s administration for about 40 years, Chinese ideology was dominant and Lee Teng-hui initially paid lip-service to Cross-Strait unification whilst working towards secessionism as reflected in the Chingdao-Lake Incident (1994); the private dialogue between Lee Teng-hui and Shiba Ryotaro (1994); the address at Cornell University (1995); and his two-state theory (1999). However, due to strong pressure from Mainland China, he did not reach his secessionist goal during his presidential term (1988-2000). In conclusion, this thesis shows that Taiwan Island’s geopolitical importance is at the heart of the US’ support for Taiwan’s secession from the Mainland. Therefore, Lee’s secessionist Cross-Strait policy aside, US national interests lie in containing Mainland China and it has, therefore, always played an important role in the secessionist issue and always will. From the perspective of Mainland China, either in terms of nationalism or national security, Taiwan’s secession is a life-and-death issue. If Taiwanese authorities were to declare independence, the only option for Mainland China would be to launch a unification war. For the US, Taiwan is only a pawn that it uses to contain Mainland China. Therefore, in the Cross-Strait issue, the US has more options than Mainland China, namely, to use military intervention in the future to deter Chinese unification or to decide to share common peaceful international relations with Mainland China by accepting Cross-Strait unification. / Thesis (DPhil (International Relations))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Political Sciences / unrestricted