The Great Silent Majority Finally Has a Voice

The Great Silent Majority Finally Has a Voice
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
January 8, 2014

Summary: On the eve of the Control Yuan's second impeachment hearing, Academia Sinica member Hu Fo personally denounced the persecution campaign waged against Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming. We want Hu Fo to know that he is not alone. His is not a voice in the wilderness. Taiwan society has not sunk to the level where right and wrong no longer matter. It is merely that those who spout absurdities have seized the bully pulpit. We would like to express our appreciation for Hu Fo's moral courage.

Full text below:

Yesterday the Control Yuan convened another impeachment hearing. After more than two hours of debate, the final vote was six against six. The move to impeach failed to pass. For the time being Huang Shim-ing will retain his post as Prosecutor General. Huang Shi-ming said that if the Control Yuan or a court of the first instance found him guilty, he would step down. Today, the Control Yuan failed to impeach him for the second time. According to Control Yuan provisions, the same person shall not be subject to impeachment proceedings for the same offense more than twice. This means that for the time being at least, Huang Shi-ming's job is secure.

On the eve of the Control Yuan's second impeachment hearing, Academia Sinica member Hu Fo submitted an article to the China Times. It was entitled, "In Broad daylight, Wallowing in Sin." He invoked the constitution and the rule of law. He personally denounced the persecution campaign waged against Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming.

Hu Fo's article merits attention. He is among the few who have come forth in support of Huang Shi-ming. He has underscored the most troubling question that haunts our society. Why have the opposition party whip and the speaker of the legislature not been investigated for their crimes, while President Ma, who supported an investigation, been denounced seven ways from Sunday? Why have the two prosecutors who participated in influence peddling been repeatedly let off, scot free, while the Prosecutor General, who prosecuted influence peddling, been villified as Public Enemy Number One, as guilty of some heinous crime, and as someone who must be dismissed or even impeached to mollify public outrage?

In his article Hu Fo avoided political rhetoric. Instead he cited the constitution and the law. He offered legal interpretations of the charges against Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming. For example, he cited the constitution's presidential powers provisions, and the Court Organization Law. He affirmed that the Prosecutor General does indeed have the duty to report to the President, especially when the case involves the Legislative Yuan, the Minister of Justice, the High Prosecutors Office, and prosecutors. The case had a bearing on the independence of the criminal justice system and on major criminal cases. The Prosecutor General reported to the President and accepted Presidential advice, entirely consistent with his duties. His conduct was fully responsible. How can anyone mischaracterize this as "leaking secrets" to the President?

Well said, indeed. Over the past several months a witch hunt against "leaking secrets" has eclipsed the prosecution of influence peddling. Many commentators have been either vague or evasive about influence peddling. But when dealing with "leaking secrets," they have held up a magnifying glass and gone over the issue with a fine tooth comb. To paraphrase President Ma's much derided remark: "If this is not a double standard, what is a double standard?"

If President Ma and Prosecutor General Huang did nothing illegal, why have they been treated like "Enemies of the People" over the past several months? Why, on the other hand, have the politicians and prosecutors who participated in influence peddling been treated as if they were egregiously wronged innocent victims? Taiwan has beein inculcating the rule of law and moral education for many years. The public ought to have a better understanding of due process and right and wrong than this. So why have right and wrong so outrageously inverted? How exactly did this come about?

Hu Fo concluded his article with the following lament. "The current political situation in Taiwan involves social polarization, plutarchy, factional struggle, and Blue vs. Green populist demagoguery. Society is indifferent to right and wrong. It substitutes falsehood for reality. It lacks values and direction. People have lost faith in democracy and the rule of law." Hu Fo sighed in frustration. He was in essence sighing for everyone on Taiwan.

Consider the current atmosphere on Taiwan. It is either Blue vs. Green opposition or factional interests uber alles. We can almost predict what the response will be to Hu Fo's article. His arguments about the rule of law may be irrefutable. But it will not matter. His arguments about right and wrong my be clear. But it will not matter. Many in the Green Camp and many who are unhappy with the Ma government, will insist that speaking on behalf of President Ma and Huang Shi-ming is wrong and must be denounced. Even if one is entirely right, to them it will make no difference.

One can predict that over the next few days, Hu Fo will be attacked, en masse, in a wide range of fora. All manner of ugly rhetoric will be emerge. A thousand fingers will be pointed at him. But on the other hand, Hu Fo's words will echo in our ears. Perhaps they will provoke a reaction from those concerned only about Blue or Green political coloration, and those who care nothing for right and wrong. They will make them show their hand. That might not be such a bad thing. At least it will validate Hu Fo's assessment of the current state of Taiwan .

We want Hu Fo to know that he is not alone. His is not a voice in the wilderness. Taiwan society has not sunk to the level where right and wrong no longer matter. It is merely that those who spout absurdities have seized the bully pulpit. Many members of the public have decided that they may as well remain silent. It does not mean everyone is blind to the facts. Hu Fo's article points to the many voices of the Great Silent Majority. Here we would like to express our appreciation for Hu Fo's moral courage.

社論－沉默多數的心聲終於獲得伸張
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年01月08日 04:09

監察院昨日再度召開彈劾審查會，歷經兩個多小時的討論，最後以6票對6票，彈劾案未過關，黃世銘暫時保住檢察總長的職位。由於先前黃世銘曾表示，若遭監察院彈劾或法院一審判有罪，他就下台；如今監院二度彈劾未過關，依規定監院不得再對同一人、同一案由提案彈劾；這意味黃世銘將暫保總長職位。

就在監院召開二次彈劾審查會前夕，中央研究院院士胡佛以〈光天化日、陷人於罪〉為題投書《中國時報》時論廣場，以《憲法》與法律的高度，針對檢察總長黃世銘所蒙受的對待與攻訐，提出他個人的評論。

這篇評論值得重視的原因，不只因為其是很少數支持黃世銘行止的論述之一，而是其道出了這個社會中許多人心中最大的困惑：為什麼進行關說的在野黨總召與立法院長沒啥人加以質疑，而支持偵辦的馬總統被罵到臭頭？為什麼接受關說的兩位檢察官一而再、再而三的被「輕輕放下」，而辦關說的檢察總長卻彷彿犯下天理不容、人神共憤的滔天大罪，非治之以撤職、彈劾甚或司法審判，否則不足以平息輿論之怒火？

胡院士在他的投書中，完全不玩弄政治語言，而是引經據典透過《憲法》及相關法律條文的規定，詮釋檢察總長黃世銘所受到的所有指控。例如他根據《憲法》中有關總統職權以及《法院組織法》中有關最高檢署檢察總長產生方式的規定，認為檢察總長當然要向總統負政策執行的責任。特別是當碰到一樁涉及立法院長、法務部部長、高檢署檢察長及檢察官，且影響到司法獨立的特殊重大不法案件，檢察總長立即向總統提出報告，並接受總統諮詢，這在職務的履行上，是非常盡責的作法，如何談得上向總統洩密呢？

誠哉斯言，過去幾個月以來，不就是針對「洩密」的撻伐，遠遠多過對「關說」的質疑！不少論者碰到「關說」的部分不是模糊以對、就是語焉不詳，但是一碰到「洩密」的部分，就是拿著放大鏡，仿若雞蛋裡挑骨頭似的檢視。套用馬總統一再被嘲弄的一句修辭法：如果這樣都不是雙重標準，還要怎樣才算是雙重標準呢？

如果馬總統與黃檢察總長都沒有「違法」疑義，那麼過去幾個月，為什麼是他們被打成仿如人民公敵，而那些行使關說的政客與被關說的檢察官，卻恍若成為最無辜的受害者？我們在台灣實施這麼多年的法治教育與道德教育，對依法行政的判定，對倫理是非的分辨，不應該是這樣的吧！那麼為什麼竟然會顛倒是非至此呢？這一切又到底是怎麼回事呢？

胡佛院士在他投書最後的結語中，發出了這樣的慨嘆：「當前的台灣政局，在族群撕裂、金權交易、派閥牽引、民粹操弄及藍綠惡鬥的情況下，整個社會變成無是無非，甚至以假當真，不但缺乏正確的價值觀與發展方向，且令人對民主法治喪失信心。」試問，胡院士嘆息與無奈，不正就是當前整個台灣最需要嘆息與無奈的地方嗎？

審視當前台灣的輿情氛圍，不就是藍綠分立、黨派為先嗎？講得再直白一些，我們幾乎現在就可以預期，胡院士這篇讜論，就算其中的就法論法的論證再堅實不過，就算其所論述的價值是非也再清晰不過，但在許多綠營人士，或是部分不滿馬政府人士的眼中，替馬總統與黃世銘講話就是不對，就是該批，那怕你講得全都是對的也沒用！

可預見，這兩天瞄準胡院士攻擊的文字，肯定會在各個平台量產，什麼難聽的話都會出籠，胡院士免不了要暫時陷入「橫眉冷對千夫指」的處境了！不過換個角度說，如果胡院士一篇擲地有聲的文字，能夠引出那些只問藍綠、不論是非的論者立即現形，那也不是壞事，至少它印證了胡院士對台灣現況的評斷。

我們想說的是，胡院士並不孤獨，他的見解也絕不是這個社會中的少數聲音！台灣社會並沒有沉淪到是非不分的地步，只不過在許多奇談怪論占領重要發言位置後，許多人乾脆選擇沉默，但絕不意味大家都已盲目到看不清事實，胡院士的這篇文字，正是道出了許多沉默大多數人的心聲，在此謹對胡院士的道德勇氣，表達我們最誠摯的敬意！