Human Rights and Clean Government

Human Rights and Clean Government
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2009

As expected, President Ma expressed his thoughts on the June 4th Tiananmen Incident yesterday. Perhaps he hoped to maintain the posture appropriate for a President. Perhaps he hoped to preserve the friendly atmosphere between Beijing and Taipei. The tone of his statement was considerably more moderate than in years past. Nevertheless, President Ma was at least consistent. Interestingly enough the Democratic Progressive Party, which has always been conspicuously silent about June 4th in the past, suddenly took an interest in June 4th. They did not offer their own thoughts on June 4th. Instead they denounced President Ma's statement as "ugly evidence of [Ma's] betrayal of the victims." Clearly this harsh rhetoric was not a commemoration of June 4, but merely the same old partisan confrontation.

The Democratic Progressive Party has long advocated the protection of human rights. It did so before the Chen Shui-bian administration. It did so during the Chen Shui-bian administration. It continues to do so after the Chen Shui-bian administration. Perhaps based on the DPP's long held position on human rights, it felt Ma Ying-jeou should have blasted Bejing on the twentieth anniversary of June 4th. But if the Democratic Progressive Party really feels this way, won't it force people to question its sincerity about protecting human rights? Isn't this an unconvincing political strategy?

Human rights was once the Democratic Progressive Party's sole demand. As well as advocating human rights, the Democratic Progressive Party also advocated clean government. But ever since Chen Shui-bian came to power and became mired in corruption scandals, the Democratic Progressive Party has shrunk from demanding clean government. It has become virtually silent on the matter. It offers ritual lip service to clean government. But its declarations ring hollow. In response to Chen Shui-bian's corruption, the Democratic Progressive Party chose to forsake its demands for clean government. It refuses to use clean government benchmarks to evaluate Chen Shui-bian and his family. Instead it uses human rights to accuse the ruling administration of political interference with the justice system. It hopes to cover up the fact that it has forsaken its demands for clean government. But its actions cannot hide its fundamental betrayal of its political and moral principles. On the contrary, they merely leave its audience skeptical of its appeals to human rights. When people learn that the DPP's advocacy of human rights has become a fig leaf to cover up DPP corruption, they realize that for the DPP, advocacy of human rights has become a political tool. It is no longer a noble ideal. The DPP's refusal to apply standards for clean government to Chen Shui-bian, merely undermines the credibility of its advocacy of human rights. The DPP has made advocacy of human rights the servant of partisan political strategy. Listeners are going to find it hard not to be skeptical.

The Democratic Progressive Party accuses President Ma Ying-jeou of no longer demanding the rehabilitation of the victims of June 4th. If this proves that Ma Ying-jeou's past advocacy of human rights was mere hypocrisy, then it also proves that the DPP's advocacy of clean government and human rights is mere hypocrisy. If the DPP's motive for criticizing Ma Ying-jeou on human rights is merely to narrow the political and moral gap between Ma Ying-jeou and Chen Shui-bian, then it merely proves that the DPP's human rights demands are insincere.

On the twentieth anniversary of June 4th, the DPP still refuses to apply its own standards for clean government to Chen Shui-bian. As a result, it has lost its right to use human rights to criticize its political opponents, whether Ma Ying-jeou or Beijing. This is a tragic development for human rights on Taiwan.

As the duly elected President of the Republic of China, Ma Ying-jeou should continue stressing that he was elected on the basis of his advocacy of human rights. Advocacy of human rights should be a political goal, not a political tool. The advocacy of human rights and the promotion of cross-Strait reconciliation are not either/or choices. They are both/and choices. The promotion of cross-Strait reconciliation is the advocacy of human rights. Human rights are universal values. They must transcend any demands arising from purely regional or nativist interests. Beijing must resolve the doubts of the public on Taiwan. It must deepen cross-Strait trust. The public on Taiwan cannot ignore the way the Tiananmen Square incident was handled. It wants to know that Beijing has the willingness to admit its errors and the determination to change its ways. The public on Taiwan has undergone two changes in ruling parties. This has enabled the ruling party to tolerate and respect opposition party criticism. The June 4th Tiananment Incident was a crackdown on dissent. Cross-Strait economic relations must be improved. But unless Beijing can confront and examine the rights and wrongs of June 4th, the two sides will have a hard time bridging the psychological divide.

On the eve of his inaugural anniversary, President Ma Ying-jeou signed two UN Conventions. The point of the signing was not to join the United Nations. The point of the signing was to to introduce international human rights norms and the rule of law into our system. It was to accelerate the implementation of international human rights standards on Taiwan. This gesture means Taipei has caught up with Beijing in signing economic and social conventions. It means Taipei is ahead of Beijing in signing the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on Human Rights. The race to sign human rights conventions has transformed the cross-Strait struggle over sovereignty into a contest over human rights. This development should be regarded as a positive development for cross-Strait relations.

The public on Taiwan cares that President Ma Ying-jeou made the proper expressions of concern on the twentieth anniversary of June 4th, and called for healthy competition between the two sides on human rights protection as the long-term basis for cross-Strait relations.

At the same time, we hope the Democratic Progressive Party will talk not only about human rights, but have the courage and integrity to talk about clean government in the same breath. The sooner it finds its moral conscience, the sooner it can begin anew.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.06.06
社論－人權與清廉都該是朝野信守的價值
本報訊

一如預期，馬總統在日前發表了六四感言，或許是為了維持總統身分的高度，也或許是為了維持兩岸當下的友善氛圍，這篇感言的語氣較之往年溫和許多，無論如何，馬總統終究維持了他的一貫性，但耐人尋味的是，往年在論述六四上一貫缺席的民進黨，今年卻突然關心起六四來了，他們並未提自己對六四的論述，卻將馬總統的六四感言批為「出賣受害者的醜陋文件」，這種在修辭上鮮明的對比，所映照出的不是紀念六四，依舊是朝野對立。

民進黨一向主張保障人權，陳水扁主政之前如此，陳水扁主政時如此，陳水扁下台後似乎仍然如此。依照民進黨一貫的人權立場，或許認為馬英九該在六四廿周年強烈表態批判北京的立場。然而，民進黨果真如此主張，會不會讓人質疑其主張並非真誠的保障人權，而只是說服力不足的政治策略呢？

人權，本來不是民進黨唯一主張；在主張人權同時，民進黨一向也主張清廉。但自從陳水扁於主政後期貪腐醜聞纏身後，民進黨清廉主張退縮了，甚至消失了，偶而唱起清廉當作裝飾音，也是荒腔走板，虛弱無力。民進黨在陳水扁議題上，選擇放棄清廉的政治堅持，不肯使用清廉做為評價陳水扁及其政治家族的標竿，而只是一味借用人權做為批判台灣政治干涉司法的旗幟，遮蓋其清廉訴求的蒼白無力，不但不能掩飾其政治道德原則的根本失落，反而使得其人權主張也難以凝聚聽眾。當人們發現人權主張竟可成為清廉缺位的遮羞布時，遂知人權政策已成民進黨的政治工具，不再是高尚的理想目的。民進黨吝於使用清廉批判阿扁，其實削弱了人權主張的信用。只是為政黨策略服務的人權論述，很難不使人於傾聽之際帶有問號。

如果民進黨指出馬英九當了總統就不再要求平反六四，足以證明馬英九過去的人權立場只是虛矯作態，這種指責恰也說中了為什麼民進黨的清廉主張甚至人權主張顯得虛矯的要害。用人權批判馬英九，如果只是為了拉近馬英九與陳水扁在政治道德評價上的距離，正也同時證明了民進黨的人權政策主張不是出自真心。

因此，至今不肯標舉清廉主張評價陳水扁所作所為的民進黨，到了六四廿周年，也就失去了標舉人權來批判其政治對手（不管是馬英九還是北京）的道德位置。這其實是台灣人權發展道路上的悲哀。

做為台灣人民選出的總統，馬英九當然應繼續堅持他選上總統所憑藉的人權主張。保障人權該是政治目的，不能是策略工具。保障人權與促進兩岸關係不是二者擇一而是可以兼籌並顧的選項；既要發展兩岸關係，也要提倡人權保障。人權做為普世價值，甚至應超越任何單純地域觀念產生的本土利益訴求。北京須瞭解，要爭取台灣人民化解心中對於北京疑慮，改善兩岸的信賴關係，當年天安門事件的處理方式，以及北京對此有無幡然改悟的政治決心，台灣人民不會不以為意。台灣累積的政權輪替經驗，使得在野者批判意見極受容忍與尊重，六四是處置鎮壓異見的事件，兩岸改善經濟關係之後，若不能正視並檢討其間是非經過，兩岸之間也仍將有極難跨越的心理鴻溝存在。

馬英九總統在就職周年前夕，簽署了兩項聯合國人公約，這次他的重點不是在於是否藉此加入聯合國，而是要將國際人權規範體系引進內國法制，加速台灣人權保障的實踐能與國際人權標準接軌。此一舉動，不僅使得台灣簽署經濟社會公約迎頭趕上對岸，也使得台灣在公民政治權利公約上的進度超前。人權公約的競賽，乃已使兩岸從主權的鬥爭，轉向人權實踐決心的比較。此項發展，應該視為兩岸關係之中一種良性互動的軌跡。

台灣人民會在乎馬英九總統在六四廿周年表達應該表達的立場，呼籲北京在兩岸之間正式展開良性的人權競賽，作為長期發展兩岸關係的基礎。於此同時，我們也期待民進黨能夠走出只敢談人權不敢談清廉的心虛困境，早日振作政黨的道德體魄，重新出發。