Martial Law? Don't even think about It!

Martial Law? Don't even think about It!
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 29, 2007

Twelve hours ago, our president announced that he was "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law." Twelve hours later, he changed his tune, saying he "absolutely would not declare martial law." This sort of fickle behavior on the part of Chen Shui-bian no longer surprises any of us. But during these 12 hours, what our minister of defense said certainly sent a chill up our spine. While answering questions from lawmakers about martial law, Lee Tien-yu said that if the Legislative Yuan refused to ratify martial law, but the president still considered it necessary, the nation's military would "obey the Command in Chief." He even added that if he were to implement martial law, "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment."

We were alarmed not because Lee Tien-yu misread the constitution so badly. We were alarmed because the minister of defense of a democratic nation would think that way. When the minister of defense openly proclaims that he would obey orders from the Commander in Chief to impose martial law, even though the Legislature has vetoed it, and even add that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment," how can one not be alarmed? Even during the Kuomintang's 40 year long imposition of martial law on Taiwan, it never dispatched a regimental commander to take control of the City of Taipei. How could Lee Tien-yu make such a cavalier statement?

We can dismiss Chen Shui-bian's talk of "martial law" as election rhetoric. But we can hardly dismiss Lee Tien-yu's declaration that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment" as election rhetoric. It makes no difference that he said "It probably wouldn't come to that." It makes no difference that he later changed his tune. The fact remains he had advance plans for imposing martial law. He even had backup plans. It makes no difference how "hypothetical" the question might have been. The fact remains that upon being questioned by a lawmaker, he had a ready answer. This tells us his remarks were not off the cuff. He had already gamed the scenario in considerable detail, and this is how the script would play out. Just imagining this scenario is enough to send a chill up one's spine.

What concerns us the most, from beginning to end, is not "whether he mispoke and changed his tune." What concerns us the most is why he was thinking this way from the beginning. Over a 12 hour period, thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were not merely being thought, they were being spoken out loud. They were emerging from the mouths of our president and our minister of defense. Chen Shui-bian later changed his tune. He declared that he "absolutely would not declare martial law" during his term of office. But the question is, why was it necessary to make such an explicit denial at this time and in this place? The fact remains, we all heard Chen Shui-bian declare aloud that he was "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law." It is even more irresponsible to pass the buck for such remarks on to talking heads in the local media. A number of well-known television commentators often speak without thinking. As the nation's highest official, a president cannot ignore the constitution, cannot ignore his own convictions, cannot casually mouth off about "giving careful consideration to imposing martial law" at a political rally. It makes no difference that Chen changed his tune afterwards. That is merely an attempt to change the subject. The fact that Chen made the statement in the first place means he was already thinking about it. There is really no point in him trying to talk his way out of this.

By the same token, before Chen Shui-bian changed his tune, Lee Tien-yu openly declared that even if the legislature opposed a declaration of martial law, he would obey the Commander in Chief's orders. It makes no difference that Lee later changed his tune. The question we must ask is: How could you say something like that in the first place? The constitution makes perfectly clear that any presidential declaration of martial law must be approved and ratified by the legislature. The constitution does not contain a provision saying that if the legislature rejects martial law, the nation's military has the option of backing the "Commander in Chief," right or wrong, to the bitter end. Lee Tien-yu's statement, his "slip of the tongue," is unforgiveable. In any genuinely democratic nation he would already have been relieved of his command.

Do not underestimate the significance of such thoughts that might flash through one's mind. Often the first words to escape one's mouth are the ones that were in one's heart. Do not assume that once one realizes one has misspoken, one can simply change one's tune and say "No harm, no foul." Some words, once spoken, have already caused damage. They are an indelible part of the historical record. Chen Shui-bian, in the absence of any evidence, publicly accused Lien Chan and James Soong of inciting a "Soft Coup." This case is currently under litigation. Is it permissible to dismiss any and all defamatory remarks as "election rhetoric" and get off scot-free?

On the 20th anniversary of the lifting of martial law, Taiwan was unexpectedly threatened with talk of reimposing martial law. The officials who dropped this bombshell were, surprise, surprise, the president and the minister of defense. No matter how hard they may try to deny making such statements, we have been put on alert. A "declaration of martial law" is a plan to which Chen Shui-bian is "giving careful consideration." Nor can we forget that in the event Chen declares martial law, Minister of Defense Lee Tien-yu has openly declared that "The Mayor of Taipei would be replaced by the Commander of the Sixth Regiment." True, they have since changed their tune. But this does not change the facts. They said what they said. Thoughts that should have been unthinkable, were being casually spoken out loud. Is Taiwan's commitment to the universal value of democracy really so tenuous?

中時電子報
中國時報 　2007.11.29
有些念頭 連想都不該想
中時社論

　十二個小時不到，我們的國家元首從「慎重考慮」戒嚴方案，到改口說「絕不戒嚴」，這種善變的扁式語言風格並不太令人意外。但在這十二個小時中間，我們國防部長的發言卻令我們害怕！李天羽在答覆立委有關戒嚴的質詢時公開表示，如果立法院不同意戒嚴，但總統仍認為有必要，國軍還是要「服從統帥」，他甚至說假若實施戒嚴，「台北市長職務將由六軍團司令接替」！

　我們的驚懼，不是因為李天羽怎麼會對憲法誤讀到這種程度，而是駭然一個民主國家的國防部長，怎麼會有這樣的心態？一個連立法院都否決的戒嚴，軍方照樣要服從「統帥命令」實施戒嚴，而且連「六軍團司令接管台北市長」這種語言都說出來了，如何不令人害怕？國民黨在台灣實施戒嚴長達四十多年，也從未動念要派軍團司令接管台北市，李天羽才一被質詢，為什麼這麼輕易就說出了口？

　我們可以將陳水扁的「戒嚴說」定位為是選舉語言，但我們似乎不能將李天羽的「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」這句話也定位為選舉語言吧？不論他當時有沒有說「應該不會發生」，也不論事後他曾怎麼改口，至少意味這是有事先做過沙盤推演的，甚至是有腹案的。而也不論它在性質上有多麼的「假設性」，能夠被立委一問就脫口說出，證明這顯然不是偶發之語，應該是事先有充分模擬過的，而且劇本就是這麼寫的，只不過這個劇本或腹案，光用「想像」就令人害怕了。

　我們從頭到尾最在意的，不是「話說錯了又改口」，而是怎麼會有這種「心態」？一個連從腦際閃過都不該有的念頭，十二個小時之間我們很輕易的就從總統與國防部長的嘴中聽聞。陳水扁事後改口強調他任內「絕不戒嚴」，問題是處在當下的台灣，這一點還需要被刻意強調嗎？至少「戒嚴」曾經做為陳水扁「慎重考慮」的方案之一，是所有人都聽到的語言吧！至於將「戒嚴」說全推給是名嘴的建議，更是不負責任，幾個電視名嘴信口雌黃一番，以身為國家最高元首的高度，不顧憲法，罔顧理念，就在選舉造勢場上說要「慎重考慮」為方案之一，不論事後有無改口，有無轉移焦點，至少證明陳水扁是曾經有過這個念頭的，這一點真的就不要再狡辯了。

　同樣的，李天羽在陳水扁還未改口前，就直接表態就算立院反對戒嚴，他也要服從統帥對戒嚴的堅持，不論他事後怎麼改口，至少我們也必須問一聲：怎麼會容許這樣的「語言」說出口？憲法上白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚，總統宣布戒嚴，必須由立院通過或追認，憲法可沒有任何一個條文說立院若是反對戒嚴，國軍可以選擇性的挺「三軍統帥」到底，李天羽這種語言，連「口誤」都不能原諒，在任何民主國家早就構成下台的理由了。

　不要低估這種輕率閃過腦際的念頭，許多時候第一回衝口說出的話，就是心中最真實的想法。也不要認為被發現說錯了話，立即改口就一切「船過水無痕」了，有些話只要說出了口，它就已經造成了傷害，它也就是抹不去的歷史紀錄。陳水扁在沒有任何證據的情況下，公開指控連宋兩人發動「柔性政變」，到現在都還在司法訴訟中，將政治語言一概界定為「選舉語言」，就可以被原諒？被容許嗎？

　選在戒嚴二十周年的時刻，台灣竟然經歷了兩天「戒嚴」說的震撼彈，拋出這個話題的，竟然就是國家元首與國防部長，而不論事後曾經怎麼改口，我們都必須提高警覺：「宣布戒嚴」曾經是陳水扁「慎重考慮」過的方案之一；我們更不能忘記：如果真的宣布戒嚴，「六軍團司令接管台北市長職務」是國防部長李天羽曾經親口說過的話，沒錯，他們都改口了，但這卻改變不了他們曾經說過的事實。一個連頃刻間閃過腦際都不容許的念頭，竟然這麼容易就被說出口，台灣對民主這個普世價值的信仰，怎麼會這麼脆弱呢？