United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2016
Executive Summary: Most state violence during the authoritarian era was inflicted in the name of "national security" and "social stability". Even the hoarding of rice could lead to prosecution. As we think back, such measures were unreasonable. But amidst the turbulence of the era, it was seen as a means of social control. Today, Taiwan has undergone 30 years of democratization. Is it not shameful for the government to shout "transitional justice" while purging political opponents, evicting people from their property, bulldozing their homes, and climbing over each other to occupy official positions? Tsai would have us believe that state violence exists only in the history books. In fact, at the urging of the DPP, the specter of state violence has reemerged, cloaked in new camouflage, woven whole cloth from "transitional justice".
Full Text Below:
In recent years, democracy has been in retreat. This has become a matter of global concern, and Taiwan is no exception. In a recent speech on World Human Rights Day, President Tsai reiterated the importance of "transitional justice", the need to confront history and ascertain the truth, in order to prevent the recurrence of state violence. Her speech was pretty. But if she thinks state violence exists only history books, she has blinded herself to reality. In fact, when Ms. Tsai took office seven months ago, signs of the new government's state violence were everywhere. The people saw this all too clearly.
When Tsai Ing-wen first came to power, she called for “qian bei, qian bei, zai qian bei”, i.e., "humility, humility, and more humility". But the moment she felt her hold on power was secure, she and the DPP began practicing a different sort of “qian bei, qian bei, zai qian bei”, i.e., “a thousand cups, a thousand cups, and a thousand cups more". She and the DPP became drunk, both from the alcohol they imbibed during celebratory feasts, and from the power they now abuse so flagrantly. "Transitional justice" has become the Tsai government's prime mover, its political pretext to proceed at full speed and run amok. Meanwhile many developments have left people in shock. Tsai and the DPP have lined their pockets, purged their opponents, ignored the law, and treated the public with contempt, all in the name of "transitional justice". In short, even as Tsai Ing-wen points to history and condemns "state violence", she commits new forms of state violence, about which she appears utterly oblivious.
The most obvious example is her use of the CIPAS to conduct a political purge of the Kuomintang. The public hoped to see KMT party assets dealt with in a reasonable and transparent manner. Doing so would enable party politics to begin anew on a level playing field. But Wellington Koo wielded power as if it were an executioner's axe. Any business or individual who had anything to do with the KMT was summoned, stigmatized, and accused. Even when the High Administrative Court and Supreme Administrative Court ruled that Koo had conducted himself improperly, he continued to act as if he was above the law. During the entire process, President Tsai and the DPP said nothing. What was this, if not naked state violence?
Such cases are ubiquitous. They differ only in degree. For example, the DPP was in office only three months when without any debate, it abused its majority in the legislature to abolish the Special Investigation Group. But the original proposal to establish the Special Investigation Group came from the DPP. The reason given then, was that high-ranking officials were guilty of corruption or dereliction of duty. But when the Special Investigation Group investigated Chen Shui-bian, it led to his imprisonment. The DPP wanted revenge, so it abolished the Special Investigation Group on its own. The DPP sees government institutions as tools to be used for the benefit of the party. It establishes them when it wants. It abolishes them when it wants. Its authoritarian mentality makes that of the Two Chiangs era pale by comparison.
Another example is the ruling DPP's seizure of state owned enterprises and even NGOs. These seizures are so flagrant they provoke disgust. If a new ruling party wants to assign credible individuals to head up state owned enterprises, that is perfectly understandable. But the successor's ability must be subject to careful evaluation. Many Tsai government appointments were made merely to mollify certain factions, or to reward certain cronies for their “cooperation”. This is hardly conducive to the development of the public sector. Even worse, some entities had term limits to avoid political controversy. Yet the ruling DPP used all manner of underhanded means to take them over. They include the Central News Agency, the Chinese Cultural Association, and the Taipei Agricultural Marketing Company. The Tsai government has repeatedly abused state power, and revealed zero tolerance for democracy.
Recently Chu Chi-yang, chairman of the Fair Friend Group, resigned as vice chairman of the Kuomintang think tank. The main reason was that the Fair Friend Group recently applied three times for bank loans, and all three times his applications were rejected. He then realized his presence was detrimental to the company. The Fair Friend Group has an annual turnover of over 40 billion dollars in machine tool business. Absent outside pressure, no bank would refuse to loan it money. When the CCP pressures pro-green camp Taiwan businessmen, the Tsai government takes its hostility out on pro-blue camp businessmen, and brutally oppresses them. Under such pressures from regimes on both sides of the Strait, how can businesses possibly enjoy normal development?
Most state violence during the authoritarian era was inflicted in the name of "national security" and "social stability". Even the hoarding of rice could lead to prosecution. As we think back, such measures were unreasonable. But amidst the turbulence of the era, it was seen as a means of social control. Today, Taiwan has undergone 30 years of democratization. Is it not shameful for the government to shout "transitional justice" while purging political opponents, evicting people from their property, bulldozing their homes, and climbing over each other to occupy official positions? Tsai would have us believe that state violence exists only in the history books. In fact, at the urging of the DPP, the specter of state violence has reemerged, cloaked in new camouflage, woven whole cloth from "transitional justice".
注意「國家暴力」幽靈的新偽裝
2016-12-20 聯合報
近年「民主在退潮」成為全球矚目的話題，台灣也不例外。蔡英文總統最近在世界人權日發表演說，再度強調「轉型正義」的重要，必須要還原歷史、找出真相，阻止國家暴力再度發生。演說固然動聽，但若以為國家暴力只存在於歷史之中，恐怕就犯了「對現實盲目」的謬誤。事實上，蔡英文上任七個月，政府新形式的「國家暴力」痕跡斑斑，人民其實都看在眼裡。
蔡英文上台時雖呼籲「謙卑，謙卑，再謙卑」，但一實際拿到政權，民進黨就上演了「千杯，千杯，再千杯」的傲慢戲碼。「轉型正義」作為蔡政府的政治發動機，一路往前推進，橫行無阻。然而，其間也出現了不少讓民眾錯愕與驚心的現象，一些遂行己利、打擊對手、漠視法制、蔑視民意的作為，都在「轉型正義」招牌的掩護下公然進行。簡言之，當蔡英文一手指著歷史罵「國家暴力」時，另一手其實是在製造新形式的國家暴力，她自己對此卻彷彿毫無自覺。
最明顯的例子，首推「黨產會」對國民黨無所不用其極的追殺和羞辱。本來，人們極期待看到國民黨黨產問題有一個合理而透澈的清理，讓政黨政治回歸公平的起跑點；但顧立雄的做法，卻是拿著御賜寶劍大開殺戒，只要跟國民黨沾上一點邊的企業或個人，都遭到傳喚、汙名與株連。甚至，當高等行政法院及最高行政法院裁定其做法不當，顧立雄還要蠻幹到底，自以為比法律還大；而在此過程中，蔡總統及整個民進黨對此皆默不作聲。這種行徑，不是赤裸裸的國家暴力是什麼？
這類事例俯拾即是，只是程度不同。例如，民進黨執政僅三個月，未經任何討論程序，即仗著國會多數優勢廢掉特偵組。然而當初提議成立特偵組的正是民進黨，說要專辦高官的貪腐失職；結果只因特偵組辦到陳水扁鎯鐺入獄，民進黨今天便「有仇報仇」，私刑將它廢了。這種把國家體制當成本黨工具的行徑，要設就設、要廢就廢，其威權心態比起兩蔣時代恐怕猶有過之。
再看，民進黨執政後對公營事業乃至民間社團的強取豪奪，更到了吃相難看的地步。隨著政黨輪替，執政者指派可信的人出任公營事業主管，當然是可以理解的事；但是，接替者的能力與才德是否足堪勝任，仍必須經過慎選，不可草率。但蔡政府任命的許多人事，卻只是為了滿足派系索求，或出於獎功賞勞的目的，對於公營事業本身的發展並無助益。更惡劣的是，對於一些為避免政治紛擾而設計了「任期制」的職務，執政者竟以各種手段強逼強取，從中央社、中華文化總會、台北農產運銷公司等的董座之爭，在在暴露蔡政府濫用國家權力，毫無民主氣度可言。
最近，友嘉集團董事長朱志洋辭去國民黨智庫副董事長，其主因，是友嘉集團最近向銀行申請三筆貸款均遭拒絕，他意識到自己的角色對公司不利。友嘉是年營業額四百多億元的工具機事業，若非相關部門施壓，往來銀行不可能無故拒絕其貸款。試想，正當親綠台商遭到中共施壓之際，台灣政府如果也將政治敵意對準友藍企業，粗暴打壓；在兩岸政權交相傾軋下，企業如何正常發展？
威權年代的國家暴力，多半是在「國家安全」與「社會安定」的大帽子底下進行，連囤積米糧都可能遭到法辦。如今回顧，或許覺得極不合理，但在當年的動盪情勢下，卻是政府遂行社會控制的手段。而時至今日，台灣民主化已經卅年，但政府一邊喊著「轉型正義」，一邊卻仍繼續施行鬥爭對手、強徵民產、強拆民宅、強奪職位等惡劣作為，豈不可恥？蔡英文以為國家暴力只存在於歷史，事實上，在民進黨的催喚下，國家暴力的幽靈正以新的偽裝出現；而它的披風，正是用「轉型正義」的符咒織成。
No comments:
Post a Comment