Is Our Chief Cross-Strait Negotiator Really a "Communist Agent?"

Is Our Chief Cross-Strait Negotiator Really a "Communist Agent?"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2014

Summary: Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.

Full Text Below:

Lo and behold, Chang Hsien-yao's overnight resignation has been blown up into "treason" for leaking state secrets. Investigators are even more outspoken. They say Chang Hsien-yao may have been been "turned, and become a Communist agent." They accused him of leaking at at least five "secret" and "confidential" files to Mainland officials. Chang Hsien-yao insists he is innocent, and termed this a 21st century "new white terror." These developments are jaw-dropping.

Chang Hsien-yao is the chief cross-Strait negotiator. He is Special Deputy Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, as well as Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of the Straits Exchange Foundation. He is an extraordinarily important official. He bears primary responsibility as a buffer, and is trusted by his superiors. If such a person turns out to be a two-faced Janus who has betrayed his country and sold state secrets, then the ROC's interests have been seriously damaged. The consequences will be unimaginable.

By now everyone if full of questions. One. Suppose the allegations are true? How many state secrets passed through his hands to the other side? Two. What "poisoned fruit" might be hidden amidst the achievements and progress made by means of cross-Strait negotiations? Three. According to "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, should all negotiations be nullified and begun all over again? Four. In the wake of this incident, how long will it be before the two sides can return to the negotiating table? Five. Who entrusted him with so much responsibility for negotiations? Do the high ranking officials who appointed him bear responsibility?

News of Chang Hsien-yao's resignation provoked all manner of speculation. Past incidents suggest he lacked discretion. For example, when the Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun visited Taiwan, Chang Hsien-yao persuaded blue camp legislator Lai Shyh-bao to hand Zhang Zhijun a petition from a domestic religious group. Wang Yu-chi later concluded that this was "inappropriate." Chang Hsien-yao made arrangements for Zhang Zhijun to visit a pineapple cake factory. This smacked of "Mainland capital" involvement, and was also deemed inappropriate. The hoped for "Ma Xi meeting" at APEC was stillborn. It was later discovered that Chang Hsien-yao's loose lips were responsible. The meeting between James Soong and Xi Jinping was allegedly brokered by Chang Hsien-yao. These are probably the reasons he was forced to step down. But they are a long way from being a "Communist agent."

Was Chang Hsien-yao merely sloppy? Or did his sloppiness conceal ulterior motives? Observers have yet to reach a definitive conclusion. Wang Yu-chi tactfully asked Chang Hsien-yao to "resign and await an investigation." Instead, Chang lashed back. He said he was "sold out by his superiors." This provoked a Bureau of Investigation intervention, and accusations of treason. As one can see, he has long maintained a high-profile, and failed to exercise restraint. As a result he found himself in deep water.

But consider another perspective. This sort of high-profile, assertive style is markedly different from that of spies who betray their country and leak state secrets. According to the Bureau of Investigation, Chang Hsien-yao leaked at least five secrets to Mainland officials, and did so "over an extended period, in calculated fashion." They were "premeditated." The Bureau of Investigation is quite insistent. Presumably is has concrete evidence.

But even assuming Chang Hsien-yao leaked confidential material pertaining to cross-Strait talks, does that mean he "was turned and became a Communist agent?" That hardly follows. One must at least examine the content and the manner in which he allegedly passed on the information, including whether he received money or some other form of remuneration. In any case, the charge of "Communist agent" is far too serious and far too much of an exaggeration. The opposition DPP stands ready to accuse the Ma administration of being Communists at the drop of a hat. The KMT feels Chang's pain. It must tread carefully when responding to allegations that its own chief negotiator is a "Communist agent." It must let the evidence do the talking. It must not tolerate exaggeration.

Chang Hsien-yao became a member of the Sean Chen cabinet on February 2, 2002. He succeed Chao Chien-min as MAC Vice Chairman. At that time the chairman was Lai Shin-yuan. Six months later, Wang Yu-chi replaced Lai Chen-wei as chairman. Chang Hsien-yao became SEF Secretary-General in early February, when Kao Koong-lian resigned. He was ordered to serve as SEF Vice Chairman and Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General. The appointment combined the two cross-Strait organizations' "official" and "buffer" status into one. It showed that the government intended to phase out the buffer. It reflected the Ma administration and the Executive Yuan's faith in Chang Hsien-yao's abilities. Who knew that just six months later, he would go from "master" of cross-Strait negotiations to a unspeakably evil "Communist agent?"

On the surface, the appointment of the SEF Vice Chairman as Mainland Affairs Council Secretary-General enabled the two organizations to work as one. In fact, having "one man wear two hats," suddenly transitioning from being an official, then back to civilian, led to role confusion. It became a vulnerabilty in the system. Did Chang Hsien-yao actually leak national security secrets? Assume that he did, and that he passed them on to others. If so, the vulnerability might be in the gray area where Chang Hsien-yao served simultaneously as SEF and MAC officials. This mater must be scrutinized to prevent future occurences.

The old anti-Communist, anti-Soviet slogan was "Communist agents are right beside you." Who knew that half a century later, in the wake of cross-Strait exchanges and direct links, Taiwan would be informed that its own master negotiator was a "Communist agent?" This is a scenario straight out of a spy movie. In any event, the Bureau of Investigation has boldly declared that Chang Hsien-yao was "turned" and became a Communist agent. Therefore one must ascertain the truth. Who if anyone "turned" him? What, if any, motive did he have? How did he operate, if he actually did? If one wishes to accuse the chief negotiator in cross-Strait talks of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, one must reveal his true colors for people to examine.

兩岸首席談判代表竟是「共諜」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.08.22 02:17 am

張顯耀去職案，一夕之間，竟升高為洩漏國家機密的「外患罪」。調查人員更大膽直言，張顯耀已疑遭對岸「吸收為共諜」，至少洩漏五件「密」與「機密」資料給大陸官員；張顯耀則喊冤，說這是廿一世紀的「新白色恐怖」。情勢的發展，令人瞠目結舌。

張 顯耀是兩岸首席談判代表，他身兼「陸委會特任副主委」及「海基會副董事長兼秘書長」的雙重身分。如此一位重要特任官，同時肩負官方主談及白手套的角色，顯 示他深受高層重用及信賴；而此人若竟是個吃裡扒外、出賣國家機密的雙面人，那麼，台灣利益因此將遭受多大的損害，不堪設想。

此際，相信每 個民眾都會有滿腹疑問：一，倘若指控為真，則國家有多少機密經過他的手中流到對方手裡？二，兩岸既有的談判成果和進展，有哪些是暗藏了其心機的「毒果」？ 三，根據毒樹毒果理論，這些談判要不要全部撕毀重來？四，經此事件，兩岸需要多長的時間才有可能重回談判桌？五，誰把這麼大的談判責任交付到他手裡？任命 的首長不須負識人不明之責嗎？

在張顯耀傳出去職後，外界第一時間提出種種揣測，從種種事例看，可看出他是個行事缺乏嚴謹規範的人。例如， 在大陸國台辦主任張志軍來台訪問時，張顯耀逕自代藍委賴士葆轉交了一分國內宗教團體的陳情案給張志軍，事後被王郁琦認為其作法「不恰當」；包括張顯耀安排 張志軍參觀具「中資」色彩的鳳梨酥工廠，也被認為不妥。此外，「馬習會」在ＡＰＥＣ的會面破局，有人指是張顯耀過早透露底線；包括五月間宋楚瑜與習近平的 「宋習會」，也有人說是張顯耀居間安排。這些，或許都構成他下台的原因，但與「共諜」的大帽子仍有很大距離。

這些作風，究竟是張顯耀個人不拘小節、或包藏禍心所致，外界目前尚無從判斷。但張顯耀在被王郁琦委婉要求「去職／靜候調查」後，卻大動作反擊，聲稱被「長官出賣」，導致後來調查局介入，反而「外患罪」加身；可見，其性格一貫高調張揚，不耐節制，殆是他惹禍上身之因。

但換一個角度看，這種高調、張揚的作風，又與一般間諜出賣國家機密的人格模式截然不同。根據調查局的說法，張顯耀曾至少「洩漏」五件以上的機密給大陸官員，而且是「長時間、有計畫性的洩密」，屬「故意犯」；調查局如此言之鑿鑿，想必握有具體證據。

然 而，縱令張顯耀曾經洩漏兩岸談判機密，是否即能斷言他「已被吸收為共諜」，恐仍不宜驟然畫上等號；至少，這須視他交付資料的內容與方式，包括他是否收受對 方的金錢對價或其他物質回饋而定。無論如何，「共諜」的帽子太大、太沉重，在野黨動不動為馬政府官員扣上紅帽子，國民黨深知其苦；如今，要指控自己任命的 首席談判代表為「共諜」，必須絕對審慎，有幾分證據說幾分話，不容渲染。

張顯耀是二○○二年二月陳冲組閣時入閣，接替趙建民出任陸委會副 主委；當時的主委仍是賴幸媛，半年後，王郁琦才接替賴成為主委。至於張顯耀兼任海基會秘書長，則是今年二月初高孔廉請辭，他受命以陸委會副主委身分兼任海 基會秘書長。這項任命，使海陸兩會的「官方之手」與「白手套」合一，顯示政府有意逐漸脫掉「白手套」的想法，也反映了府院對張顯耀能力的信任。誰料，不過 短短半年，他就從兩岸談判場上的第一「高手」被打成了邪惡的「共諜」？

值得注意的是，陸委會副主委兼海基會秘書長的任命，表面上似讓兩個 單位在運作上有了「如臂使指」的便利；實際上，卻因「一人雙角」忽官、忽民的變化，易致角色扮演上的混淆，成為國家體制上一個不易設防的漏洞。張顯耀洩漏 國安機密若屬實，又如檢舉人所稱的「在境外交付」，那麼，主要漏洞便可能發生在張顯耀「海陸雙駕」的灰色地帶。這點，勢須重新檢討防堵。

當 年反共抗俄的口號是「匪諜就在你身邊」，沒想到，半世紀後兩岸熱絡三通交流，台灣新發現的「共諜」竟然是自己談判桌上的主將；這簡直是間諜電影般不可思議 的劇情。無論如何，調查局既敢大膽說張顯耀「被吸收」當共諜，就得把關鍵的「吸收者」、「動機」及「作業模式」找出來。如果要指控兩岸談判主將是披著羊皮 的狼，那麼，總得要把他的真面目讓民眾看一下吧！