The Second Anniversary of the Red Shirt Movement

The Second Anniversary of the Red Shirt Movement
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2008

Today is the second anniversary of the September 9 Red Shirt Movement. Movement leader Shih Ming-teh requested a face to face meeting with President Ma Ying-jeou, to discuss the United Nations Anti-Corruption Convention, and to respond to public expectations about anti-corruption. Concerned that its actions might be construed as interfering in Chen Shui-bian's prosecution, the Presidential Office refused to grant his request.

Yesterday the United Daily News' "Black and White Files" wondered whether President Ma refused to meet with Shih Ming-teh because Ma was preoccupied with Chen Shui-bian. Ma forgot that opposition to corruption is a universal value, and a matter of simple justice. All Ma could think about was staying away from a political hot potato. Ma refused to allow his teflon coating to brush up against Shih Ming-teh's Red Shirt.

The United Daily News has addressed two issues. One is the nature of the Red Shirt Movement. The other is Ma Ying-jeou's thought processes.

First let's look at the Red Shirt Movement. Viewed from up close, it was an "anti-Chen" movement. Chen Shui-bian was the chief culprit. But viewed from farther away, it was an historic movement, during which society attempted to establish genuine democracy and the rule of law. Having lived through this movement, the public on Taiwan no longer has any place for "President Chen Shui-bian." The movement was a warning to all future presidents and national leaders: You may not embezzle, and the justice system may not betray the people!

Do not reduce the Red Shirt Movement to a Blue vs. Green power struggle. The Red Shirt Movement was not about opposition to Chen. It was a grassroots movement that reflected the public's desire for genuine democracy and the rule of law. These universal values are part and parcel of democracy. Had Chen Shui-bian's scandals occurred in Korea, he would have ended up like Chun Doo Hwan or Roh Tae-woo. Had they happened in Peru, he would have ended up like Alberto Fujimori. Had they happened in the Philippines, he would have ended up like Ferdinand Marcos. Had they happened in Japan, he would have ended up like Kakuei Tanaka. Had they happened in the United States, he would have ended up like Richard Nixon. If people remain mired in realpolitik, they will only remember names such as Chen Shui-bian, Roh Tae-woo, and Ferdinand Marcos. But from an historical perspective, these cases are a test of democracy and the rule of law, when confronted by corrupt national leaders. We too face challenges to democracy and the rule of law. Chen Shui-bian is nothing more than an example from the pages of history.

Only by rising above narrow "anti-Chen" thinking can one understand the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement. We must reaffirm democracy and rule of law. We must confirm that it is able to punish a corrupt president. Chen Shui-bian is merely the case at hand. This is not merely an "anti-Chen" movement. It is a pro-democracy, pro-rule of law movement.

Now let's look at Ma Ying-jeou's thinking. From the very beginning Ma Ying-jeou has kept the Red Shirt Movement at arms length. The very first question he raised was whether the demonstrations could continue through the night. The impression Ma Ying-jeou gave was that he only cared about what they law prohibited, not about what the law protected. Ma Ying-jeou appeared far too concerned about protecting his image as mayor. He was far too rigid about what the letter of the law prohibited. He failed to champion what the law protected, including the right of public assembly and the right of free speech. He also failed to respond to public opinion. Ma Ying-jeou left the impression he was a legal hack and not a political leader.

Ma Ying-jeou reveals this same thinking each time a political incident occurs. For example, during the Chuang Kuo-jung incident, he seemed concerned only about demonstrating his magnanimity. He seemed utterly indifferent to public outrage over issues of right and wrong and questions of justice. During Chen Shui-bian's State Affairs Fund Case, Ma seemed concerned only about behaving "appropriately." Apparently indifferent to public demands for justice. he at first refused to declassify Chen's case files.

Such examples show that the public expects justice, but that Ma Ying-jeou is willing to do only the bare minimum the law requires on behalf of justice. Sometimes he values his personal image more highly than the cause of justice. Otherwise, why would he permit overnight protests even though he initially concluded they were illegal? Also, according to the law, he had the right to declassify the State Affairs Fund Case files, but at first he refused to respond. In the end he found a face-saving measure allowing him to do so.

Ma Ying-jeou's refusal to meet with Shih Ming-teh also seems to be the result of such thinking. Ma Ying-jeou's concern for his image is commendable. But caution to the point where one loses one's audacity and vision is a defect in a political leader. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh. If he is concerned about "unduly influencing the legal process," all he needs to do is state in advance that he will not discuss Chen Shui-bian's case. Ma Ying-jeou has refused to meet Shih Ming-teh because of Chen Shui-bian. But by refusing to meet Shih Ming-teh Ma has left the impression that he repudiates society's collective memory of that historic movement.

From a realpolitik perspective, the Red Shirt Movement of course included an anti-Chen agenda. But the historical significance of the Red Shirt Movement for democracy and the rule of law far exceeds any "anti-Chen" agenda. Ma Ying-jeou, Chen Shui-bian, and Shih Ming-teh were the stars of this drama. But the public must rise above such a limited understanding of the event. It must acknowledge its own role in this spontaneous grass roots movement against corruption.

If Ma Ying-jeou adopts the position that he is opposed to corruption but not to Chen Shui-bian personally, then he can look Chen Shui-bian's corruption case squarely in the eye, from the perspective of history. He will also be able to meet Shih Ming-teh without concern.

紅衫運動二周年：反扁一時，反貪永遠！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.09.09 03:00 am

今天是九九紅衫運動二周年。運動領袖施明德想請見馬英九總統，面交聯合國反貪腐公約，並反映社會反貪腐的期待；府方因顧慮會被誤認影響扁案司法程序，拒絕所請。

本報《黑白集》昨天指出，馬總統拒見施明德，或許是因眼裡只看到「陳水扁」，卻看不到「反貪腐」的普世價值或天經地義。因此，只知計較是否會惹上現實政治的譏讒，而不願於此際在自己的鍋裡沾上施明德的紅衫色彩。

本文嘗試談兩個角度：一是紅衫運動的本質，一是馬英九的思維。

先談紅衫運動。貼近來看，這是一場「反扁」的運動，因為陳水扁是貪腐的主角；但若抽離來看，這卻是台灣社會追求「真民主」與「真法治」的歷史機遇。經過此次運動，在台灣政治中，不再有「陳水扁總統」這個角色；但這場運動卻是在警示未來任何的總統及主政者：你們皆不可貪腐，司法亦不可背叛人民！

不要把紅衫運動只看成現實的藍綠鬥爭；紅衫運動的價值不在「反扁」，而是以一場公民運動，反映了國人對於真民主、真法治的追求，這是民主政治的天經地義與普世價值。陳水扁這類事件，若發生在韓國，就近似全斗煥或盧泰愚；若在秘魯，就近似藤森；若在菲律賓，就近似馬可仕；若在日本，就近似田中角榮；若在美國，就近似尼克森。如果沉陷在現實政治中，人們只會注意陳水扁、盧泰愚、馬可仕這類的名字；但若從大歷史的觀點來看，這些案例皆是民主法治面對貪腐主政者的大考驗。現在，台灣所面對的也是民主法治的大考驗，陳水扁只是歷史進程中所提供的題材而已。

因此，跳脫出「反扁」的狹窄思維，始能體會紅衫運動在台灣民主大歷史上的價值。現在必須證實的是：台灣的民主法治，有能力懲治貪腐的總統；只是碰巧陳水扁成為目前的個案。這不只是一場「反扁」運動，更是一場民主法治的升級升階運動。

接著談馬英九的思維。馬英九對紅衫運動自始就採若即若離的態度。例如，一開始就面對示威活動是否可以跨夜舉行的問題；馬英九起初的表現，被認為是只注意法律的禁制規定，卻不能闡發法律的保障規定。當時，馬英九表現得太過保護自己的市長角色，也太過拘泥於法律的負面規範；而未能發揮法律保障集會言論之精神，也未能正確回應民意。當時的輿論就認為，馬英九像一個「法匠」，而不像政治領袖。

馬英九的這類思維模式，幾乎出現在他所有的重大政治動作中。例如，在莊國榮案中，他似只想表現自己的人格光彩，卻渾然不知民間對是非價值及正義觀點的認知；再如，在陳水扁國務費案中，他也只想維持他的角色「分寸」，起初不解密，也似完全不知民間對正義的期待。這類事例皆顯示，社會對正義有期待，但馬英九卻只願在法律的最低限度上提供支援，甚至有時將自己的角色形象置在高於社會正義的地位；否則，怎麼會依法有跨夜集會的空間卻起初不予認可，又依法原來有解密的空間而起初不回應（最後以註銷找到下台階）？

現在，馬英九拒絕與施明德見面似乎也是出自此類思維。馬英九的「愛惜羽毛」可以肯定；但若矜持謹慎到展現不出大氣魄、大格局的地步，那恐怕就是身為政治領袖的缺陷。以馬英九拒見施明德而言，倘若避忌流於「影響司法」的譏評，只要事先言明不談陳水扁的個案即可；如今馬英九因陳水扁而拒見施明德，卻亦因拒見施明德，而形同拒絕了那一段反貪腐公民運動的社會共同記憶。

在政治現實中，紅衫事件當然有「反扁」的訴求；但在台灣民主法治的大歷史中，紅衫事件自有超越「反扁」的深遠意義。馬英九、陳水扁、施明德雖皆是這個運動中的角色，但國人應當擺脫跳開這些角色的囿限，讓台灣留下一篇人民自動自發反抗貪腐的民主史詩。

馬英九的心中若存有「只見反貪／不見阿扁」的大歷史觀點，他就能正確面對扁案，也可心無罣礙地會見施明德。