Hau Lung-bin's Goodwill Gesture: Ruling and Opposition Party Harmony?

Hau Lung-bin's Goodwill Gesture: Ruling and Opposition Party Harmony?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 23, 2012

Summary: Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.

Full Text below:

Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin yesterday attended the opening ceremony for "Freedom Lane." He suggested that the government deal with the issue of medical parole for former President Chen. He said doing so might heal social divisions. Hau Lung-bin's suggestion was unexpected. Sure enough, it has provoked questions about his motivation. The Green Camp expressed approval. But the Blue Camp was reserved. Some suggested that Hau Lung-bin was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign.

The Blue and Green camps have long been at loggerheads. Expressions of support for Chen Shui-bian's medical parole are unlikely to meet with Blue Camp approval. They are unlikely to receive support even from moderates. Hau Lung-bin is not that naive. If he is seeking higher office, he knows that offending Pan Blue voters is not a smart strategy.

Therefore we should not question Hau Lung-bin's motivation. We should instead ask ourselves whether Mayor Hao's suggestion is reasonable. The suggestion that Chen Shui-bian should be granted medical parole, or even a presidential pardon, was originally confined to Green Camp supporters. Now a Blue Camp heavyweight has echoed their calls. Chen Shui-bian supporters were on the margins. This gave them a tremendous boost. Do Hao's arguments for medical parole or a presidential pardon have any merit? Hau Lung-bin's arguments are similar to those advanced by Ah-Bian supporters. The arguments advanced by Ah-Bian supporters are dubious. Just because Hau Lung-bin is currently advancing the same arguments does not make the arguments any the less dubious. Their arguments for granting Chen Shui-bian medical parole or a presidential pardon have not suddenly been imbued with legitimacy.

Consider what Hau Lung-bin said and wrote. Hau made three points. One. He praised Cheng Nan-jung, who immolated himself in the cause of freedom of speech. Cheng's act indirectly contributed to the amending of "Article One Hundred of the Criminal Code." Democracy on Taiwan entered a new phase. That is why the Taipei City Government established a "Freedom Lane." It was to commemorate Cheng Nan-jung. Two. Over the past few years political conflicts have persisted. Society on Taiwan has remained mired in internecine warfare. The impact of the global recession has been menacing and severe. Hau called on politicians to cease their infighting and concentrate on improving the economy.

Three. Hau Lung-bin noted the lack of trust between the ruling and opposition parties. Calls to cease infighting have never gone beyond lip service. He suggested that Chen Shui-bian's medical condition and strong cries from his supporters for medical parole, made dealing with former President Chen's medical parole urgent. He also suggested that they might help heal society's wounds.

Hau Lung-bin's concerns about ruling vs. opposition party infighting are justified. But he suggested that medical parole for Chen Shui-bian was a remedy. Leave aside whether his reasoning is sound. Ask yourself instead whether it is fair or just. It could lead to ruling and opposition party conflict. After all, the ruling and opposition parties hold diametrically opposed notions of justice. Can a compromise be reached between the two? That is a giant question mark.

The Green Camp has changed its strategy. It went from demanding a presidential pardon for Ah-Bian, to demanding medical parole. The main reason was that according to the Constitution of the Republic of China, a pardon may be granted only after a verdict has been reached. Only then can the president exercise his power of pardon. Chen Shui-bian has yet to be tried in court for several criminal offenses. Ah-Bian must first enter a guilty plea. That would speed up the trial process. That is the first hurdle. The second hurdle is that so far Chen Shui-bian has pleaded not guilty. The claims to be the victim of political and judicial persecution. He has refused to apologize for his corruption. The President has no basis on which to grant a pardon. Ah-Bian has refused to admit wrongdoing. If he is pardoned, that would imply he was the victim of judicial persecution.

Hao Lung-ping equates Cheng Nan-jung's act of self-immolation with the Chen corruption case. That is absurd. Cheng Nan-jung fiercely defended freedom of speech. He was a victim of a bad law. Chen Shui-bian is behind bars because he engaged in rampant corruption. His imprisonment has nothing to do with politics. The two issues are totally unrelated. They simply cannot be compared.

It is premature to talk of pardoning Chen Shui-bian. But recently Chen Shui-bian's family members and the Green Camp have constantly floated rumors about Chen Shui-bian's physical and mental condition. This should not be overlooked. Hao Lung-bin suggests that the relevant agencies immediately organize a team of medical experts to assess Chen Shui-bian's health. This is indeed necessary. But those demanding medical parole for Ah-Bian must abide by any conclusions reached by the physicians who conduct the examination. Ah-Bian must not be granted medical parole for political reasons. That would amount to granting him a presidential pardon under the guise of medical parole. Given the current political climate and Ah-Bian's behavior, that would hardly be appropriate.

Chen Shui-bian has yet to admit guilt. The trial process has yet to be concluded. The government may grant a former head of state certain courtesies while he serves his sentence. The Taipei Detention Center upgraded Chen Shui-bian's accomodations. That is indeed necessary.

Hau Lung-bin may have advanced the same arguments as Chen Shui-bian supporters. But Hau Lung-bin was more sincere. He honestly believed the ruling and opposition parties should seek reconciliation. Hau was not casting about for a pretext to support Ah-Bian. But just because one's motives are pure, that does not mean one's logic is sound. The consequences of cavalierly granting medical parole to Ah-Bian could easily lead to even greater ruling and opposition party conflict. This would run counter to Hau Lung-bin's intent.

郝龍斌的善意 真能帶來朝野和諧？
    2012-08-23 01:18
    中國時報

　台北市長郝龍斌日昨出席「自由巷」掛牌儀式並公開建議，政府應該以正面、積極態度處理陳前總統保外就醫案，因為該案對撫平社會傷痕有指標意義；郝龍斌出人意表的發言，果然引來動機論的質疑，綠營雖然肯定，但藍營態度保留，馬上有人斷言，郝龍斌是在為總統大選鋪路。

　持平而言，以台灣藍綠對立的現況，此時任何支持陳水扁保外就醫的言行，不但無法得到藍營支持，甚至可能無法得到中間選民的認同，郝龍斌再天真也會了解，他如果有更上一層樓的企圖心，現在得罪藍營選民，絕對不是一個聰明的策略。

　所以，與其從動機論的角度來看待郝龍斌的發言，還不如就事論事、檢視郝市長的建議是否合情合理；畢竟，有關陳水扁保外就醫甚或特赦的議題，原來只局限於綠營支持者，現在卻是藍營大將出面喊話，對原來侷於一隅的挺扁陣營，是一大助力，但是，郝龍斌的支持，是否會讓保外就醫或特赦的是非、道理有所不同？尤其，郝龍斌和挺扁人士的立論，其實相去不遠，如果挺扁人士的立論有問題，現在就不可能因為郝龍斌的顏色或立場，而讓陳水扁保外就醫一事，忽然有了正當性。

　檢視郝龍斌的談話及文章，他有三個重點，第一，他肯定當年為了追求百分之百言論自由而自焚的鄭南榕，間接促成刑法一百條的修正，台灣的民主政治從此進入新的境界，北市府因此設立「自由巷」來紀念鄭南榕。其次，過去幾年來政治上的對立衝突不斷上演，但台灣社會陷入內鬥惡耗之際，全球不景氣的嚴重衝擊卻來勢洶洶，他呼籲政治人物停止內鬥，集中心力拚經濟。

　郝龍斌也正確的指出，朝野政黨缺乏互信，停止內鬥始終停留在口號層次，他因此建議，「以目前陳水扁的健康狀況，以及他的支持者對他保外就醫的強烈呼求來看，正面處理陳前總統保外就醫問題，不但有其急迫性，而且對於撫平社會傷痕將有指標性的作用。」

　郝龍斌對朝野惡鬥的擔憂，確實言之成理，但是他祭出陳水扁保外就醫這帖猛藥，先不論是否有效，單就是否合乎公平正義而論，即可能先引發朝野對立。畢竟，朝野和諧與司法正義若是天平的兩端，這兩個價值之間，是否可以以輕易妥協交換，的確大有商榷空間。

　綠營之所以調整策略，從挺扁特赦，轉為要求保外就醫，主要原因在於，依照中華民國憲法，必須司法定讞後，總統才能行使特赦權，但目前陳水扁仍有多項案件尚未完成司法流程，除非扁及早認罪，才可能加速司法流程，這是第一個關卡；第二個關卡，到目前為止，陳水扁堅不認罪，揚言自己受到政治及司法迫害，他既不為過去的貪腐案認錯道歉，總統也就缺乏特赦的正當性，因為，當扁不願認錯卻被特赦，豈非坐實他是遭到到司法迫害的指控。

　此外，郝龍斌將扁案等同於鄭南榕的自焚，是一個大謬誤。鄭南榕是為了言論自由進行激烈抗爭，是過去惡法亦法的受害者；相反的，陳水扁今日身陷囹圄，卻是因為貪腐，和政治完全無涉，兩者不能相提並論。

　當然，即使目前仍然不到特赦陳水扁的時機，但是近來陳水扁家屬及綠營人士不斷傳話，指陳水扁身體精神有狀況，則不宜輕忽；所以，郝龍斌建議，相關單位立即組成醫療小組，針對陳水扁的健康狀況進行專業評估，確實有其必要；但結果如何，則必須尊重醫師專業判斷；否則，若只從政治角度考量，讓扁保外就醫，這形同以保外就醫之名，行特赦之實，就目前的民意氣候以及扁的表現而言，恐怕還不適宜。

　也許，在陳水扁認錯或是司法程序完結前，政府能做的就是，基於對卸任元首的尊重，讓他在服刑時可享有一定的禮遇，北監日前也改善了陳水扁的待遇，這確實是必要的作為。

　可以說，即使和挺扁人士立論相同，但是郝龍斌多了一點誠意，他真心相信朝野應該和解，而不是以此做為挺扁的幌子；然而，動機良善，卻不保證言之成理，扁保外就醫的問題，如果不謹慎處理，後果可能是更大的朝野對立，那就和郝龍斌的原意背道而馳了。