Grand Justices amidst a Constitutional Crisis
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 12, 2007
The Legislative Yuan has decided to exercise its right of advise and consent over the presidential appointment of Judicial Yuan Grand Justices, Control Yuan officials, and the Auditor General. Whether the opposition party will approve any or all of the president's nominees is uncertain.
The Grand Justices' legal opinion in Case No. 632 states: "[Regarding the appointment of Control Yuan personnel] the constitution does not permit the Legislative Yuan to passively forfeit its power of advise and consent." As it turns out, the political opposition is changing its strategy. From a constitutional perspective, the Grand Justices are correct. But from a practical perspective, the dilemma is rooted in Chen Shui-bian's incompetence and corruption. Any solution will need to balance both the requirements of constitutionalism and the requirements of justice.
The legislature delayed exercised its power of advise and consent in the appointment of Control Yuan officials for many years, because it suspected Chen Shui-bian's motives for nominating financial conglomerate head Yin Chi. Chen's list of nominees was controversial and disappointed public expectations. The opposition party within the Legislative Yuan refused to consider Chen's nominees. For years Chen Shui-bian responded in kind by refusing to nominate any alternates. As a result, the Control Yuan has been deadlocked.
Chen Shui-bian's term is nearing its end. Control Yuan officials are not alone. The terms of half the Grand Justices and the Auditor General are also nearing their ends. Chen Shui-bian has expressed a willingness to submit a new list of nominees for the Control Yuan. The opposition party has agreed to evaluate his nominees. The Legislative Yuan has decided to exercise its power of advise and consent. First it intends to tackle the nominees for Grand Justice and the Auditor General. The circumstances today, however, are somewhat different. Back then Chen Shui-bian's nominations were suspect because of whom he nominated and how he nominated them. Now Chen Shui-bian's nominations are controversial because of his personal corruption and incompetence. Recently Chen Shui-bian went so far as to publicly insult the judiciary over the State Affairs Confidential Expense scandal. Under the circumstances, how can anyone trust him to nominate new Grand Justices? Furthermore, Chen Shui-bian's list of nominees reveals flagrant political bias. It invites public controversy over the professionalism and competence of political appointees. Therefore the Legislative Yuan's refusal to consider Chen's nominations may not accord with the Grand Justices' interpretation of the constitution. But for the legislature to repeatedly cave in and rubberstamp anyone nominated is hardly an acceptable alternative. The opposition party must give careful thought to how this matter should be handled.
The Grand Justices' legal opinion in Case No. 632 reads: "[Regarding the appointment of Control Yuan personnel] the constitution does not permit the Legislative Yuan to passively refuse to exercise its power of advise and consent." If the Legislative Yuan considers the nomination inappropriate, it is within its rights to veto the nomination. There is no question of whatsoever of "violating the constitution." If a veto impacts the Grand Justices' performance of their duties, the only choice the president has is to nominate another candidate. The Grand Justices' legal opinion in Case No. 632 also states that "The constitution does not permit the president to passively refuse to nominate another individual." The constitution cannot simultaneously tolerate the president violating the constitution while objecting to the legislature violating the constitution.
How many nominees for Grand Justice the Legislative Yuan may veto, and how many candidates the president must renominate, may be in dispute. The Grand Justices' legal opinion in Case No. 632 should be based on the impact on the Grand Justices' fulfillment of their duties. According to the rules, an interpretation of the constitution requires a quorum comprising two thirds of the "current number" of Grand Justices. If two thirds of the "current number" express an opinion, then the opinion stands. But if the "current number" of Grand Justices has already fallen below this number, this may affect the proper functioning of the Council of Grand Justices. The question is, what do we mean by the "current number?" According to the constitution, if the "current number" is 15 persons. Two thirds means 11 persons. Eight nominees have been submitted for legislative approval. If five or more nominees are rejected, the shortfall must be made up by the president. But suppose the "current number" is taken to mean "those currently serving." Suppose eight persons are nominated, and only one or two are approved. Then there will only be 10 Grand Justices. A two thirds quorum, consisting of only seven persons, would be interpreting the constitution. Is this few too few? Should the numbers be supplemented by new nominations? This issue will surely be subject to political interference.
The Grand Justices are the Guardian Angels of constitutionalism. The Control Yuan is the nation's "Internal Affairs Division." Chen Shui-bian, a destroyer of the constitution and an abuser of the authority of his office, will be nominating these officials. That is a national tragedy. The opposition party respects the Grand Justices' interpretation. It may be obligated to exercise its power of advise and consent. But the defense of constitutionalism requires checks and balances. If unqualifed persons are nominated, the legislature must cite their reasons, then veto any such nominees. The public will understand. For the legislature to constantly cave in would constitute a gross dereliction of duty, and would warrant harsh public condemnation.
在憲政亂流中提名大法官
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.12 02:55 am
司法院大法官、監察院以及審計長人事同意案，立法院已決定行使同意權，但在野黨是否將不同意部分甚或全部人選，則尚屬未定。
此一演變固與大法官釋字六三二號解釋指「（就監察院人事）立法院消極不行使同意權……為憲法所不許」有關，但在野黨改變了杯葛的策略更為關鍵因素。因為， 就憲法體制而言，大法官所言雖有其依據；但就實際情勢來看，眼下的問題卻是陳水扁失政敗德所造成的。今後如何處理，恐怕還是要在憲政體制和公平正義之間求 得平衡。
回顧監察院人事同意權延宕多年之背景，起因是陳水扁在提名過程中讓財團人士殷琪參與其事，引發質疑；且最後入選名單有相當大的爭議，不孚眾望，立法院在野黨遂拒絕審議。而陳水扁多年來亦以強硬態度應對，拒不重新提名，以致監察院停擺迄今。
如今，陳水扁任期已近尾聲，而非僅監察院，大法官（半數）及審計長等人事均已屆期，陳水扁乃表示願改變監院名單，在野黨亦表示不再杯葛，立法院遂決定行使 同意權，且先處理大法官及審計長之人事案。然而，現今情勢又與當初有所不同；當初是因陳水扁提名過程及名單均有爭議；如今則更因陳水扁貪腐纏身，執政失去 正當性所致。陳水扁近日甚至因其國務機要費案件，出言辱及司法，在此情況下，由其提名大法官，實難獲得社會信任。更何況，在陳水扁提出的大法官名單中，確 有政治立場偏頗、擔任政務官時引起物議的人士濫竽其間。因而，拒不審議固與大法官釋憲不符，但一味妥協、全數通過亦顯不恰當，如何妥適處理，在野黨自應慎 重考慮。
就此而言，大法官釋字六三二號解釋僅謂立法院消極不行使同意權為憲法所不許；唯倘若立法院認為提名不當、予以否決，則無「違憲」問題可言。若因否決而發生 影響大法官會議之功能，總統唯有重新提名一途，否則即屬大法官釋字六三二號解釋所謂「總統消極不為提名……為憲法所不許」的情況，變成總統違憲而非立院違 憲。
至於大法官被提名人選，立法院否決到多少人數，總統必須重新提名，恐怕會有爭議。參照大法官釋字六三二號解釋，應以是否影響大法官的功能為準；而依照大法 官審理案件法的規定，釋憲須有「現有總額」三分之二以上大法官出席、出席三分之二以上通過，則通過人數在此標準以下，可認定為影響其功能。問題是：何謂 「現有總額」？倘以憲法規定人數為準，則「總額」為十五人，三分之二以上須十一人，此次提名八人，則若不通過者超過四人，達到五人或以上，即須由總統補提 名。但「總額」若以「實際在職」人數為準，則本次提名八人，若僅一或二人通過，連同在職者，則為不到十人；三分之二出席，就成了七人亦可釋憲，如此人數是 否過少，應否補提名？此一爭議如何認定，必受政治鬥爭之干擾。
大法官是憲政正義的守護神，監察院則職司風憲；如今卻讓毀憲亂政至此地步的陳水扁行使提名，實是國家的悲劇。在野黨為尊重大法官解釋，或許不能拒審；但為 維護憲政，必須嚴予把關。若有不適任人士，只要有具體的理由，即應否決，社會大眾定能接受；倘若一味放水，反而是立院放棄責任，將受輿論責難。
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The Olympic Flame Dispute: No ROC Flag, No Status Quo
The Olympic Flame Dispute: No ROC Flag, No Status Quo
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 11, 2007
The Olympic Flame controversy has, no pun intended, flared up once more. This time the cause is the upcoming presidential election and escalating moves toward Taiwan independence. This time the controversy is not limited to whether the Republic of China (ROC) flag may appear along the route of the Olympic Flame. This time Beijing must choose between the Republic of China and a would be "State of Taiwan."
When Taiwan independence was hidden and covert, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hemmed in the Republic of China (ROC) using every means at its disposal. The CCP's attacks against the ROC, its denial of the ROC's legitimacy, became a major factor in the development of Taiwan independence. Each time the CCP diminished the ROC, it aggrandized Taiwan independence. The situation has worsened to the point where the CCP must see that the harder it comes down on the ROC, the more it boosts Taiwan independence.
The Olympic Flame controversy is a clear illustration. In the past, the CCP maintained a Closed Door Policy. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait had no contacts and no exchanges. The internal politics of the Taiwan region were relatively simple. The "Olympic Committee Model" was still internationally viable, right up to the opening of cross Straits exchanges. Taiwan's internal political struggles then became more complex and bitter. Attempts to prevent spectators on Taiwan from waving ROC flags naturally provoked protests. The word now is that Beijing wants to prevent the appearance of ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame. This shows even more clearly the changes since the formulation of the "Olympic Committee Model." After all, the original intent was to limit only the flags and anthems used by the local sponsor of the sports event. Extending these limitations to the spectators is unreasonable. Extending these limitiations to the streets of Taiwan along the route of the Olympic Flame is totally unacceptable.
The CCP opposes Taiwan independence. But it must leave the Taiwan region an alternative. Apart from the Republic of China, there is no alternative. The situation in the Taiwan Straits was once a standoff between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the ROC. But now the CCP must make a choice between the ROC and a would be "State of Taiwan." As many point out, if Beijing cannot tolerate the sight of red, white and blue ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame, would it prefer the sight of streets lined wtih green "State of Taiwan" flags?
We have entered an era that "does not permit unilateral changes to the status quo." We have entered an era in which we must choose between the "Republic of China" (status quo) or a would be "State of Taiwan" (changing the status quo). Beijing has decided that only de jure independence in the form of "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" is true Taiwan independence. Preserving the ROC is not Taiwan independence. Therefore Beijing ought to allow the ROC to survive with dignity. If the ROC is no longer able to survive, then Taiwan independence will gather increasing momentum. And the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will inevitably clash one day.
The impact of the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" controversy is every bit as serious as the "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" controversy. Many regard the "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" as an election ploy, merely a Blue vs. Green political tug-of-war. The "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" issue may involve issues of national dignity and national identity. But it is primarily a Blue vs. Green test of strength. By contrast, the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" battle will take place on Taiwan soil, along Taipei streets. If the ROC flag is banned, if public and private bodies along the route of the Olympic Flame are compelled to lower their ROC flags, it will certainly turn into a direct test of strength between Beijing authorities and the public on Taiwan. The psychological impact on Taiwan society will be inestimable. If the Beijing authorities forbid the display of ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame, they will antagonize everyone on Taiwan, Blue and Green alike.
How the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" incident will play out is not yet clear. Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have said they will carry ROC flags with them when they welcome the Olympic Flame. Ma Ying-jeou announced his "Five Principles concerning the Flag and the Anthem." He proposed that henceforth sporting events and the audience be separated. That way the audience will not be denied the right to wave flags and sing the anthem. We fear altercations within the grandstands at Olympic venues. This sort of backlash from the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" incident is inevitable.
These changes in the Taiwan Straits situation have occurred because the DPP is currently in power. For the DPP, the only distinction remaining between the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan independence" is a paper distinction, the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." If the Republic of China flag continues flying over the presidential palace and other government buildings, then the Republic of China's status quo can be maintained. But if the Beijing authorities forbid the flying of the ROC flag along the route of the Olympic Flame, it will seriously impact the status quo. It will add fuel to the fire of Taiwan independence, and provoke demands for change. The Beijing authorities must understand that the ROC, with its red, white, and blue flag, is an important factor in the maintenance of the status quo.
The status quo in the Taiwan Strait is: The Republic of China or a would be "State of Taiwan?" Which offers a way out? Beijing must choose between the Republic of China and a would be "State of Taiwan." If it opposes changes to the status quo but prohibits the appearance of the ROC flag along the route of the Olympic Flame, then the "status quo" will be difficult to maintain, and the cross Straits crisis will inevitably become more serious.
Without the Republic of China flag, there is no "status quo" in the Taiwan Straits.
聖火紀事：沒有國旗，豈有現狀？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.11 03:34 am
奧運聖火，又生波折。此事發生在因總統大選而台獨操作升高之際，所涉及的已不僅是聖火來台沿途可否出現國旗的問題，而是北京的台海政策必須在中華民國與台灣國之間作一抉擇的問題。
往昔，在台獨隱伏之時，中共全面圍堵中華民國；而中共打壓和否定中華民國，亦成為台獨發展的主要背景因素。中共每削減中華民國一分，就為台獨增添一分。爾今情勢急轉直下，惡化至如此地步，中共當局應當已經看出這個蹺蹺板；愈打壓中華民國，台獨的聲勢就愈高漲。
聖火爭議是一鮮明例證。過去，中共鎖國，兩岸不接觸、不交流，台灣內部政治亦相對較為單純之時，「奧會模式」在國際場合尚可維持；及至兩岸開放交流，台灣內部的政治鬥爭既複雜又尖銳，欲限制在台灣本土觀看比賽的民眾亦不可持國旗，自然屢生爭議。如今，竟又傳出北京方面有禁止聖火沿途出現國旗的主張，更加顯示時空的變異已經超出了當年制定「奧會模式」時的想像。畢竟，原是針對賽事當局及參賽者規定的旗歌限制，欲延伸至賽場觀眾已非合理，如今若再欲擴大至聖火沿途的台灣城市空間，這自是絕無可能接受之事。
中共反對台獨，但總要讓台灣有一條路可走，而捨中華民國之外，別無他途。過去，台海情勢或許是中華人民共和國與中華民國的對決，但如今則已成中共須在中華民國或台灣國之間作一抉擇之勢。正如許多人指出，聖火來台，若不容出現青天白日滿地紅國旗，難道北京希望看到沿路皆是台灣國的旗幟迎接聖火？
海峽情勢進入「不容片面改變現狀」的時代，其實就是已經進入必須在「中華民國」（現狀）或「台灣國」（改變現狀）之間作一抉擇的階段。北京當局既認定「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」才是「台獨」，而「中華民國」非屬台獨；則北京理當讓「中華民國」能夠維持生機與尊嚴。若中華民國亦無活路，自使台獨的聲勢攀高不下，如此則兩岸難免會有對撞的一天。
「聖火／國旗」事件的影響未必小於「入聯／返聯」議題。許多人皆視「入聯／返聯」為選戰手法，只是藍綠的政治拔河而已；因而，「入聯／返聯」雖亦涉及國家尊嚴及民族主義的操作，但仍以藍綠相互角力的成分居大。相對而言，「聖火／國旗」事件，將以台灣本土台北市的開放空間為事件現場，倘竟禁止出現國旗，又命沿路公私機構降旗，必將形成北京當局與台灣民眾的直接角力，對台灣社會的心理衝擊將不堪設想。北京當局若有聖火沿途禁旗主張，不啻是與全體台灣民眾為敵，藍綠皆然。
如今，「聖火／國旗」事件將如何演化尚未明朗，馬英九及謝長廷卻皆已表態將持國旗迎聖火；而馬英九更宣示「旗歌五原則」，主張今後應將「賽事」與「觀眾」區隔，不能剝奪觀眾持國旗、唱國歌的權利。如此一來「聖火／國旗」之事猶不知如何發展，未來比賽現場觀眾席上的旗歌爭議卻已可預料將層出迭見。這是「聖火／國旗」事件引發的反彈，無可回逆。
台海情勢丕變，由於民進黨取得執政地位，如今「中華民國」與「台獨」的分際，其實只剩下一紙之隔的「正名制憲」四字而已。倘若中華民國的國旗仍能每日升上總統府及所有政府機構的旗桿，中華民國的「現狀」即差堪維持；而若北京當局竟欲在聖火沿途禁止國旗出現，其立即效應必是對「現狀」的重大衝擊，亦是為台獨改變現狀的訴求火上加油。準此以言，北京當局應知：中華民國及青天白日旗皆為維持現狀的重要支柱！
台灣如今的政治主題儼然已是：中華民國與台灣國，何者才是台灣的出路？因此，北京當局的台海政策，亦必須在中華民國與台灣國之間作一抉擇。倘若一方面「反對改變現狀」，另一方面又禁止聖火沿途出現國旗，則「現狀」既難維持，兩岸的困局也就必然更趨嚴峻。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 11, 2007
The Olympic Flame controversy has, no pun intended, flared up once more. This time the cause is the upcoming presidential election and escalating moves toward Taiwan independence. This time the controversy is not limited to whether the Republic of China (ROC) flag may appear along the route of the Olympic Flame. This time Beijing must choose between the Republic of China and a would be "State of Taiwan."
When Taiwan independence was hidden and covert, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hemmed in the Republic of China (ROC) using every means at its disposal. The CCP's attacks against the ROC, its denial of the ROC's legitimacy, became a major factor in the development of Taiwan independence. Each time the CCP diminished the ROC, it aggrandized Taiwan independence. The situation has worsened to the point where the CCP must see that the harder it comes down on the ROC, the more it boosts Taiwan independence.
The Olympic Flame controversy is a clear illustration. In the past, the CCP maintained a Closed Door Policy. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait had no contacts and no exchanges. The internal politics of the Taiwan region were relatively simple. The "Olympic Committee Model" was still internationally viable, right up to the opening of cross Straits exchanges. Taiwan's internal political struggles then became more complex and bitter. Attempts to prevent spectators on Taiwan from waving ROC flags naturally provoked protests. The word now is that Beijing wants to prevent the appearance of ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame. This shows even more clearly the changes since the formulation of the "Olympic Committee Model." After all, the original intent was to limit only the flags and anthems used by the local sponsor of the sports event. Extending these limitations to the spectators is unreasonable. Extending these limitiations to the streets of Taiwan along the route of the Olympic Flame is totally unacceptable.
The CCP opposes Taiwan independence. But it must leave the Taiwan region an alternative. Apart from the Republic of China, there is no alternative. The situation in the Taiwan Straits was once a standoff between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the ROC. But now the CCP must make a choice between the ROC and a would be "State of Taiwan." As many point out, if Beijing cannot tolerate the sight of red, white and blue ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame, would it prefer the sight of streets lined wtih green "State of Taiwan" flags?
We have entered an era that "does not permit unilateral changes to the status quo." We have entered an era in which we must choose between the "Republic of China" (status quo) or a would be "State of Taiwan" (changing the status quo). Beijing has decided that only de jure independence in the form of "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" is true Taiwan independence. Preserving the ROC is not Taiwan independence. Therefore Beijing ought to allow the ROC to survive with dignity. If the ROC is no longer able to survive, then Taiwan independence will gather increasing momentum. And the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will inevitably clash one day.
The impact of the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" controversy is every bit as serious as the "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" controversy. Many regard the "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" as an election ploy, merely a Blue vs. Green political tug-of-war. The "Join the UN/Rejoin the UN" issue may involve issues of national dignity and national identity. But it is primarily a Blue vs. Green test of strength. By contrast, the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" battle will take place on Taiwan soil, along Taipei streets. If the ROC flag is banned, if public and private bodies along the route of the Olympic Flame are compelled to lower their ROC flags, it will certainly turn into a direct test of strength between Beijing authorities and the public on Taiwan. The psychological impact on Taiwan society will be inestimable. If the Beijing authorities forbid the display of ROC flags along the route of the Olympic Flame, they will antagonize everyone on Taiwan, Blue and Green alike.
How the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" incident will play out is not yet clear. Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have said they will carry ROC flags with them when they welcome the Olympic Flame. Ma Ying-jeou announced his "Five Principles concerning the Flag and the Anthem." He proposed that henceforth sporting events and the audience be separated. That way the audience will not be denied the right to wave flags and sing the anthem. We fear altercations within the grandstands at Olympic venues. This sort of backlash from the "Olympic Flame/ROC flag" incident is inevitable.
These changes in the Taiwan Straits situation have occurred because the DPP is currently in power. For the DPP, the only distinction remaining between the "Republic of China" and "Taiwan independence" is a paper distinction, the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." If the Republic of China flag continues flying over the presidential palace and other government buildings, then the Republic of China's status quo can be maintained. But if the Beijing authorities forbid the flying of the ROC flag along the route of the Olympic Flame, it will seriously impact the status quo. It will add fuel to the fire of Taiwan independence, and provoke demands for change. The Beijing authorities must understand that the ROC, with its red, white, and blue flag, is an important factor in the maintenance of the status quo.
The status quo in the Taiwan Strait is: The Republic of China or a would be "State of Taiwan?" Which offers a way out? Beijing must choose between the Republic of China and a would be "State of Taiwan." If it opposes changes to the status quo but prohibits the appearance of the ROC flag along the route of the Olympic Flame, then the "status quo" will be difficult to maintain, and the cross Straits crisis will inevitably become more serious.
Without the Republic of China flag, there is no "status quo" in the Taiwan Straits.
聖火紀事：沒有國旗，豈有現狀？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.11 03:34 am
奧運聖火，又生波折。此事發生在因總統大選而台獨操作升高之際，所涉及的已不僅是聖火來台沿途可否出現國旗的問題，而是北京的台海政策必須在中華民國與台灣國之間作一抉擇的問題。
往昔，在台獨隱伏之時，中共全面圍堵中華民國；而中共打壓和否定中華民國，亦成為台獨發展的主要背景因素。中共每削減中華民國一分，就為台獨增添一分。爾今情勢急轉直下，惡化至如此地步，中共當局應當已經看出這個蹺蹺板；愈打壓中華民國，台獨的聲勢就愈高漲。
聖火爭議是一鮮明例證。過去，中共鎖國，兩岸不接觸、不交流，台灣內部政治亦相對較為單純之時，「奧會模式」在國際場合尚可維持；及至兩岸開放交流，台灣內部的政治鬥爭既複雜又尖銳，欲限制在台灣本土觀看比賽的民眾亦不可持國旗，自然屢生爭議。如今，竟又傳出北京方面有禁止聖火沿途出現國旗的主張，更加顯示時空的變異已經超出了當年制定「奧會模式」時的想像。畢竟，原是針對賽事當局及參賽者規定的旗歌限制，欲延伸至賽場觀眾已非合理，如今若再欲擴大至聖火沿途的台灣城市空間，這自是絕無可能接受之事。
中共反對台獨，但總要讓台灣有一條路可走，而捨中華民國之外，別無他途。過去，台海情勢或許是中華人民共和國與中華民國的對決，但如今則已成中共須在中華民國或台灣國之間作一抉擇之勢。正如許多人指出，聖火來台，若不容出現青天白日滿地紅國旗，難道北京希望看到沿路皆是台灣國的旗幟迎接聖火？
海峽情勢進入「不容片面改變現狀」的時代，其實就是已經進入必須在「中華民國」（現狀）或「台灣國」（改變現狀）之間作一抉擇的階段。北京當局既認定「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」才是「台獨」，而「中華民國」非屬台獨；則北京理當讓「中華民國」能夠維持生機與尊嚴。若中華民國亦無活路，自使台獨的聲勢攀高不下，如此則兩岸難免會有對撞的一天。
「聖火／國旗」事件的影響未必小於「入聯／返聯」議題。許多人皆視「入聯／返聯」為選戰手法，只是藍綠的政治拔河而已；因而，「入聯／返聯」雖亦涉及國家尊嚴及民族主義的操作，但仍以藍綠相互角力的成分居大。相對而言，「聖火／國旗」事件，將以台灣本土台北市的開放空間為事件現場，倘竟禁止出現國旗，又命沿路公私機構降旗，必將形成北京當局與台灣民眾的直接角力，對台灣社會的心理衝擊將不堪設想。北京當局若有聖火沿途禁旗主張，不啻是與全體台灣民眾為敵，藍綠皆然。
如今，「聖火／國旗」事件將如何演化尚未明朗，馬英九及謝長廷卻皆已表態將持國旗迎聖火；而馬英九更宣示「旗歌五原則」，主張今後應將「賽事」與「觀眾」區隔，不能剝奪觀眾持國旗、唱國歌的權利。如此一來「聖火／國旗」之事猶不知如何發展，未來比賽現場觀眾席上的旗歌爭議卻已可預料將層出迭見。這是「聖火／國旗」事件引發的反彈，無可回逆。
台海情勢丕變，由於民進黨取得執政地位，如今「中華民國」與「台獨」的分際，其實只剩下一紙之隔的「正名制憲」四字而已。倘若中華民國的國旗仍能每日升上總統府及所有政府機構的旗桿，中華民國的「現狀」即差堪維持；而若北京當局竟欲在聖火沿途禁止國旗出現，其立即效應必是對「現狀」的重大衝擊，亦是為台獨改變現狀的訴求火上加油。準此以言，北京當局應知：中華民國及青天白日旗皆為維持現狀的重要支柱！
台灣如今的政治主題儼然已是：中華民國與台灣國，何者才是台灣的出路？因此，北京當局的台海政策，亦必須在中華民國與台灣國之間作一抉擇。倘若一方面「反對改變現狀」，另一方面又禁止聖火沿途出現國旗，則「現狀」既難維持，兩岸的困局也就必然更趨嚴峻。
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Final Showdown between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan"
The Final Showdown between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 08, 2007
The upcoming presidential election is being defined as a final showdown between the Republic of China and a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." It was inevitable that it would come to this.
First, let's look at what it has come to. On the day of the Hu/Bush summit, Chen Shui-bian was in Nantou, where he repeated 13 times, "We demand Taiwan independence!" (The only thing he didn't say was "So what are you going to do about it?) Frank Hsieh declared that if he was elected he would become the "President of the Nation of Taiwan." Later he amended his statement, saying that "Taiwan is the Republic of China." But the Republic of China is of course not the "Nation of Taiwan." The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is no longer a means of pretending one is "not seeking Taiwan independence," but merely a means of "joining the UN under a new name." As matters stand, the rhetoric and thinking of those on the political stage is now aligned with that of the Green camp's pirate radio stations. The Nation of Taiwan has now revealed its true face.
Chen Shui-bian has hijacked the Democratic Progressive Party. As long as he can use "Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence" to rescue "Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat who faces Indictment," his strategy will not change. This presidential election will be turned into a showdown between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China. Therefore, even if Frank Hsieh is elected, he will not be able to start anew "March next year" as he promised in the US. Who doesn't know that so-called Taiwan independence "elders" have already warned him: "If you don't promote the "rectification of names" and the "authoring of a new constitution," we are going to put the screws to you." Therefore, the theme of the upcoming election has already been set. The Democratic Progressive Party has already defined Taiwan's political scenario as a showdown between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China.
Next, let's look at why it has come to this. The "Nation of Taiwan" has not shown its face for some time. Instead, it has been reincarnated under various aliases, as "nativization," as "Taiwan uber alles," as "loving Taiwan," as "Taiwanese pathos," as "normalization of the nation," as the "rectification of names," and as the "authoring a new new constitution." The same applies to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN." From the very beginning Chen Shui-bian insisted that it "has nothing to do with Taiwan independence," and that he "has not violated the Five Noes." Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power, it has been playing word games. Switching back and forth between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the "Republic of China," turning black into white. The result is the public on Taiwan has not been able to distinguish between the two. Now however, the "Nation of Taiwan" has revealed its true face. The public no longer has any reason not to make a clear choice. Therefore, the upcoming presidential election will inevitably become a final showdown between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." Everyone has made his position clear. No need to remain in hiding any longer. No need to use a smoke screen.
This time Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan independence moves cannot be dismissed as mere "election ploys." One cannot assume that after March next year everything will simply return to the way it was. This time Chen's Taiwan independence moves involve his prosecution for corruption and his legacy. He is fighting for his political life. How else can he hijack the Democratic Progressive Party? How else can he deal with corruption indictments after leaving office? This time Chen Shui-bian's goal is to create a political and social psychological breakthrough for Taiwan independence by means of the upcoming election. He hopes to ensure his status as the standard bearer for Taiwan independence after stepping down. Therefore, the "Nation of Taiwan" is not a phony agenda that will automatically vanish once the election passes. Instead, it must be seen as a permanent break with the Republic of China, a path of no return. This election is the final showdown between the Republic of China and a would be "Nation of Taiwan." It is also a showdown between a president of the Republic of China and a would be president of a would be "Nation of Taiwan." This is what it has come to, and this is what it had to come to.
Looking back at the vicissitudes of the past eight years, we see that Chen Shui-bian once advocated a "new centrist path." He pledged "Five Noes." But now he is moving toward "Four Demands," toward a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" and a "Plebiscite for Taiwan Independence." During these eight long years, Chen Shui-bian has by increments adopted an ever more radical posture as cover for his gross incompetence and brazen malfeasance. Centrist voters have been bitterly let down. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian has finally removed his political camouflage. He has revealed his Taiwan independence colors. For the first time, the public has the opportunity to make a clear choice between a would be "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China. This is a turning point worth celebrating. The election is seven months away. This gives the public a chance to consider their feelings about a would be "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China, and make a calm and reasoned choice.
The Nation of Taiwan has come out of the closet. It is no longer pretending to toe the "new centrist path." It is no longer pretending to honor the "Five Noes." The issue in the upcoming election is going to be: "The Republic of China or the Nation of Taiwan? Make your choice!" Which "country" will win? No one knows. Any would be "Nation of Taiwan" has an Achilles heel. Otherwise its champions would not have had to hide their real agenda along the way. But the case for the Republic of China also has vulnerabilties. Otherwise its defenders would not come across so mealy-mouthed and defensive.
The upcoming presidential election has been defined as a final showdown between the Republic of China and a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." Whoever fears to step onto this battlefield, whoever lacks the ability to direct this battle, will be the loser.
一場中華民國與台灣國的決戰
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.08 05:28 am
這場總統大選已經定位為中華民國與台灣國的決戰，且也必須定位為中華民國與台灣國的決戰。
「已經定位」是實然面，「必須定位」則為應然面。
先談「已經定位」。雪梨布胡會當天，陳水扁在南投說了十三次「我們就是台獨」（他只是沒說「嘸你嘜安吶」），謝長廷則宣示他選的是「台灣國總統」（後來，他修正說「台灣就是中華民國」，但「中華民國」畢竟不是「台灣國」），再加上「入聯公投」也不再以「不是台獨」來遮掩，而逕指是以「新國家的名義入聯」。事態至此，檯面人物的語言及思維已與綠營地下電台完全一致，台灣國儼然已以本來面目亮相。
民進黨被陳水扁挾持，只要他以「台獨的陳水扁」來挽救「貪腐的陳水扁」之大戰略不變，這場總統大選就必然被他導向「台灣國」與「中華民國」的決戰。因而，縱使謝長廷勝選，謝也絕無可能使一切在「明年三月以後」歸零（他訪美時如此說）；豈未聞如今已有所謂台獨「大老」警告謝長廷：「你當總統不搞這些（正名制憲），我們也會逼你搞！」所以，自這場大選至大選以後，台灣的政局皆已被民進黨定位為台灣國與中華民國的決戰。
再談「必須定位」。長期以來，「台灣國」並未以本來面目現身；而是以「本土化」、「主體性」、「愛台灣」、「台灣悲情」、「國家正常化」、「正名制憲」等「化名」與「化身」示人；甚至此次「入聯公投」，陳水扁一開始亦稱「無關台獨」，「未違反四不」。民進黨主政以來，始終在「中華民國」與「台灣國」之間穿出穿進，搞得虛實莫辨，真偽難分；影響所及，台灣民眾也一直未能在台灣國與中華民國之間作一認真的思辨。然而，如今情勢發展至此，「台灣國」既以本來面目示人，則國人也就沒有不作抉擇的餘地。因此，這次總統大選也就「必須定位」為中華民國與台灣國的決戰；大家都把話說清楚，勿再猶抱琵琶半遮面，也不要再打煙幕戰。
不可將陳水扁此番的台獨操作視為僅是「選舉議題」，而認為「明年三月以後」一切即可復原；因為，這次台獨操作，涉及陳水扁的貪腐官司及歷史定位，可謂是他政治生命的生死掙扎，不如此他如何挾持民進黨，不如此他又如何對付卸任後的貪腐追訴？陳水扁此時的目標是：透過此次大選，在政治上及社會心理上造成為台獨衝破「紅線」的效應，藉以確保他在卸任後維持台獨旗手的地位；就此而言，「台灣國」絕不會是大選過後就自動消失的「假議題」，而可視為自此與中華民國分道揚鑣的不歸路。
這次選舉是中華民國與台灣國的決戰，也是中華民國總統與台灣國總統的決戰。已經如此定位，亦必須如此定位。
回顧八年來的滄桑變化，陳水扁曾有「新中間路線」的思維，亦有「四不一沒有」的承諾，如今卻走向「四要」，及以「入聯公投」包裝「台獨公投」；漫漫八年，陳水扁一步步走上以更激進的姿態來掩飾其失政敗德的路子，中間選民對他的期待亦付諸東流，此皆十分可惜之事。但是，反過來說，陳水扁最後終於卸去一切偽裝的政治胭脂，以台獨的真面目亮相，卻亦使國人第一次有機會在台灣國與中華民國之間作一思辨與抉擇，這卻是一個值得國人慶幸的契機。何況，此時距大選尚有七個月，國人可將台灣國與中華民國置於胸臆腦際，慢慢咀嚼反芻，然後好整以暇地作出冷靜明智的抉擇。
台灣國已以本來面目亮相，沒有「新中間路線」的幻影，亦不再有「四不一沒有」的虛晃。這次大選的主題就是：中華民國與台灣國，你選何國？至於究竟最後何「國」勝出，恐無人可以逆料。畢竟，「台灣國」的論述者有其罩門，否則即不必一路遮遮掩掩，不肯以本來面目示人；而「中華民國」的論述者亦有弱點，否則即不會始終說不清楚，處處陷於挨打的狀態。
然而，無論如何，這次選舉已是一場中華民國與台灣國的決戰；誰不敢進入這個戰場，或沒有能力經營此一戰場，即是失敗者，就是輸家。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 08, 2007
The upcoming presidential election is being defined as a final showdown between the Republic of China and a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." It was inevitable that it would come to this.
First, let's look at what it has come to. On the day of the Hu/Bush summit, Chen Shui-bian was in Nantou, where he repeated 13 times, "We demand Taiwan independence!" (The only thing he didn't say was "So what are you going to do about it?) Frank Hsieh declared that if he was elected he would become the "President of the Nation of Taiwan." Later he amended his statement, saying that "Taiwan is the Republic of China." But the Republic of China is of course not the "Nation of Taiwan." The "Plebiscite to Join the UN" is no longer a means of pretending one is "not seeking Taiwan independence," but merely a means of "joining the UN under a new name." As matters stand, the rhetoric and thinking of those on the political stage is now aligned with that of the Green camp's pirate radio stations. The Nation of Taiwan has now revealed its true face.
Chen Shui-bian has hijacked the Democratic Progressive Party. As long as he can use "Chen Shui-bian the Champion of Taiwan Independence" to rescue "Chen Shui-bian the Kleptocrat who faces Indictment," his strategy will not change. This presidential election will be turned into a showdown between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China. Therefore, even if Frank Hsieh is elected, he will not be able to start anew "March next year" as he promised in the US. Who doesn't know that so-called Taiwan independence "elders" have already warned him: "If you don't promote the "rectification of names" and the "authoring of a new constitution," we are going to put the screws to you." Therefore, the theme of the upcoming election has already been set. The Democratic Progressive Party has already defined Taiwan's political scenario as a showdown between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China.
Next, let's look at why it has come to this. The "Nation of Taiwan" has not shown its face for some time. Instead, it has been reincarnated under various aliases, as "nativization," as "Taiwan uber alles," as "loving Taiwan," as "Taiwanese pathos," as "normalization of the nation," as the "rectification of names," and as the "authoring a new new constitution." The same applies to the "Plebiscite to Join the UN." From the very beginning Chen Shui-bian insisted that it "has nothing to do with Taiwan independence," and that he "has not violated the Five Noes." Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power, it has been playing word games. Switching back and forth between the "Nation of Taiwan" and the "Republic of China," turning black into white. The result is the public on Taiwan has not been able to distinguish between the two. Now however, the "Nation of Taiwan" has revealed its true face. The public no longer has any reason not to make a clear choice. Therefore, the upcoming presidential election will inevitably become a final showdown between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." Everyone has made his position clear. No need to remain in hiding any longer. No need to use a smoke screen.
This time Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan independence moves cannot be dismissed as mere "election ploys." One cannot assume that after March next year everything will simply return to the way it was. This time Chen's Taiwan independence moves involve his prosecution for corruption and his legacy. He is fighting for his political life. How else can he hijack the Democratic Progressive Party? How else can he deal with corruption indictments after leaving office? This time Chen Shui-bian's goal is to create a political and social psychological breakthrough for Taiwan independence by means of the upcoming election. He hopes to ensure his status as the standard bearer for Taiwan independence after stepping down. Therefore, the "Nation of Taiwan" is not a phony agenda that will automatically vanish once the election passes. Instead, it must be seen as a permanent break with the Republic of China, a path of no return. This election is the final showdown between the Republic of China and a would be "Nation of Taiwan." It is also a showdown between a president of the Republic of China and a would be president of a would be "Nation of Taiwan." This is what it has come to, and this is what it had to come to.
Looking back at the vicissitudes of the past eight years, we see that Chen Shui-bian once advocated a "new centrist path." He pledged "Five Noes." But now he is moving toward "Four Demands," toward a "Plebiscite to Join the UN" and a "Plebiscite for Taiwan Independence." During these eight long years, Chen Shui-bian has by increments adopted an ever more radical posture as cover for his gross incompetence and brazen malfeasance. Centrist voters have been bitterly let down. On the other hand, Chen Shui-bian has finally removed his political camouflage. He has revealed his Taiwan independence colors. For the first time, the public has the opportunity to make a clear choice between a would be "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China. This is a turning point worth celebrating. The election is seven months away. This gives the public a chance to consider their feelings about a would be "Nation of Taiwan" and the Republic of China, and make a calm and reasoned choice.
The Nation of Taiwan has come out of the closet. It is no longer pretending to toe the "new centrist path." It is no longer pretending to honor the "Five Noes." The issue in the upcoming election is going to be: "The Republic of China or the Nation of Taiwan? Make your choice!" Which "country" will win? No one knows. Any would be "Nation of Taiwan" has an Achilles heel. Otherwise its champions would not have had to hide their real agenda along the way. But the case for the Republic of China also has vulnerabilties. Otherwise its defenders would not come across so mealy-mouthed and defensive.
The upcoming presidential election has been defined as a final showdown between the Republic of China and a would-be "Nation of Taiwan." Whoever fears to step onto this battlefield, whoever lacks the ability to direct this battle, will be the loser.
一場中華民國與台灣國的決戰
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.08 05:28 am
這場總統大選已經定位為中華民國與台灣國的決戰，且也必須定位為中華民國與台灣國的決戰。
「已經定位」是實然面，「必須定位」則為應然面。
先談「已經定位」。雪梨布胡會當天，陳水扁在南投說了十三次「我們就是台獨」（他只是沒說「嘸你嘜安吶」），謝長廷則宣示他選的是「台灣國總統」（後來，他修正說「台灣就是中華民國」，但「中華民國」畢竟不是「台灣國」），再加上「入聯公投」也不再以「不是台獨」來遮掩，而逕指是以「新國家的名義入聯」。事態至此，檯面人物的語言及思維已與綠營地下電台完全一致，台灣國儼然已以本來面目亮相。
民進黨被陳水扁挾持，只要他以「台獨的陳水扁」來挽救「貪腐的陳水扁」之大戰略不變，這場總統大選就必然被他導向「台灣國」與「中華民國」的決戰。因而，縱使謝長廷勝選，謝也絕無可能使一切在「明年三月以後」歸零（他訪美時如此說）；豈未聞如今已有所謂台獨「大老」警告謝長廷：「你當總統不搞這些（正名制憲），我們也會逼你搞！」所以，自這場大選至大選以後，台灣的政局皆已被民進黨定位為台灣國與中華民國的決戰。
再談「必須定位」。長期以來，「台灣國」並未以本來面目現身；而是以「本土化」、「主體性」、「愛台灣」、「台灣悲情」、「國家正常化」、「正名制憲」等「化名」與「化身」示人；甚至此次「入聯公投」，陳水扁一開始亦稱「無關台獨」，「未違反四不」。民進黨主政以來，始終在「中華民國」與「台灣國」之間穿出穿進，搞得虛實莫辨，真偽難分；影響所及，台灣民眾也一直未能在台灣國與中華民國之間作一認真的思辨。然而，如今情勢發展至此，「台灣國」既以本來面目示人，則國人也就沒有不作抉擇的餘地。因此，這次總統大選也就「必須定位」為中華民國與台灣國的決戰；大家都把話說清楚，勿再猶抱琵琶半遮面，也不要再打煙幕戰。
不可將陳水扁此番的台獨操作視為僅是「選舉議題」，而認為「明年三月以後」一切即可復原；因為，這次台獨操作，涉及陳水扁的貪腐官司及歷史定位，可謂是他政治生命的生死掙扎，不如此他如何挾持民進黨，不如此他又如何對付卸任後的貪腐追訴？陳水扁此時的目標是：透過此次大選，在政治上及社會心理上造成為台獨衝破「紅線」的效應，藉以確保他在卸任後維持台獨旗手的地位；就此而言，「台灣國」絕不會是大選過後就自動消失的「假議題」，而可視為自此與中華民國分道揚鑣的不歸路。
這次選舉是中華民國與台灣國的決戰，也是中華民國總統與台灣國總統的決戰。已經如此定位，亦必須如此定位。
回顧八年來的滄桑變化，陳水扁曾有「新中間路線」的思維，亦有「四不一沒有」的承諾，如今卻走向「四要」，及以「入聯公投」包裝「台獨公投」；漫漫八年，陳水扁一步步走上以更激進的姿態來掩飾其失政敗德的路子，中間選民對他的期待亦付諸東流，此皆十分可惜之事。但是，反過來說，陳水扁最後終於卸去一切偽裝的政治胭脂，以台獨的真面目亮相，卻亦使國人第一次有機會在台灣國與中華民國之間作一思辨與抉擇，這卻是一個值得國人慶幸的契機。何況，此時距大選尚有七個月，國人可將台灣國與中華民國置於胸臆腦際，慢慢咀嚼反芻，然後好整以暇地作出冷靜明智的抉擇。
台灣國已以本來面目亮相，沒有「新中間路線」的幻影，亦不再有「四不一沒有」的虛晃。這次大選的主題就是：中華民國與台灣國，你選何國？至於究竟最後何「國」勝出，恐無人可以逆料。畢竟，「台灣國」的論述者有其罩門，否則即不必一路遮遮掩掩，不肯以本來面目示人；而「中華民國」的論述者亦有弱點，否則即不會始終說不清楚，處處陷於挨打的狀態。
然而，無論如何，這次選舉已是一場中華民國與台灣國的決戰；誰不敢進入這個戰場，或沒有能力經營此一戰場，即是失敗者，就是輸家。
Friday, September 7, 2007
A Remedial Class on Transitional Justice
A Remedial Class on Transitional Justice
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 06, 2007
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party has had seven different Government Information Office (GIO) Chiefs since it assumed power. Every one of them has been, shall we say, unique. From "The Shooter," who mimicked gunning down reporters at a press conference, to "The Ribbon Cutter," who presided over ribbon cutting ceremonies for illegal pirate radio stations. From "The Terminator" who shut down cable television networks offensive to the ruling DPP, to "The Broker," who negotiated deals for those he was supposed to be regulating. But the most "unique" GIO Chief of all, has to be Hsieh Chi-wei, who has outdone them all.
Why is Hsieh Chi-wei so insufferably arrogant? Hsieh is proud of the fact that he studied German literature in Germany. Because he studied German literature in Germany, he presumes that he is qualified to hold forth on "transitional justice." That, and because he enticed a former East Germany premier with a large sum of money to come to Taiwan and demand that the KMT account for its party assets. He and Chen Shui-bian, who knows nothing about Germany whatsoever, are singing the identical tune. They are demanding that "half of the officials of the judiciary be purged" and that all officials of the judiciary be compelled to declare their party affiliation on the Internet.
How much Hsieh Chi-wei knows about German literature we can't say. But based on the nonsense he has spouted about "transitional justice," he knows nothing about German history, and even less about German politics and law. He is depending solely on his authority as government spokesman to assert that Germany is the way he says it is. He is a disgrace to every scholar who has ever studied in Germany.
Those who have studied transitional justice know that next to Latin America, the most discussed region is Eastern Europe, including Germany. This region has undergone a metamorphosis from socialism to capitalism. These post communist countries must sort out private property, public property and party property. They must right miscarriages of justice. They must investigate refugees gunned down while fleeing from behind the Iron Curtain. They must separate the sheep from the goats. They must also deal with the mountain of dossiers compiled by their secret police. As of today, Eastern Europeans have talked a lot about transitional justice. but those who have actually done something about it are few and far between. It is not that the scope of social reforms is not extensive enough, or that understanding is not deep enough. The problem is transitional justice depends upon the transformation of society as a whole.
So-called transitional justice, is simply making right today what was wrong yesterday. When we encounter a society undergoing transformation, when what I am today emerged from what I was yesterday, just how am I to carry out transitional justice? Is a new generation supposed to exact vengeance on the previous generation? Are some individuals playing by old rules, supposed to turn around and exact vengeance on others? When everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else, transitional justice becomes a form of soul searching. We must never allow a new generation to commit the same mistakes over and over again.
In all of Eastern Europe, only Germany was able to achieve some degree of transitional justice. The reason is simple. Germany reformed by means of merger, in reality, annexation. West Germany's capitalist system replaced East Germany's socialist system in toto. That is why post reunification Germany had good reason to eliminate judges whose heads were filled with socialist ideology. That is why their ranks had to be replaced by judges from West Germany. No other Eastern European country was able to achieve this.
The ROC's tranformation was less radical than Eastern Europe's. Our economy was always capitalist. Our political system was always "democratic gradualism." Therefore following democratization, most of our legal and social institutions needed no further modification. Most importantly, our transition was different from East Germany's. It was the same as other Eastern European countries. It was a collective transformation, akin to the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly. The old rules of the game may have been riddled with injustices, yet the society as a whole advanced from the past to the present. So the question is, precisely who has the right to demand transitional justice from whom? New landlords who worship the old land ownership policies? Corporate heads who depend on old incentives to seize international market share? What right does someone who was once a Kuomintang cell leader, who made it into National Taiwan University because he scored well on Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles, who was able to buy a house before all his classmates because he studied Martial Law era maritime law, presume to demand the purging of half the officials within the justice system? Is Chen Shui-bian, a potential defendant in the State Affairs Confidential Expenses case, to decide which half of the officials in the judiciary should be purged? Will these include the presiding judges in his corruption trial?
Had Hsieh Chi-wei really studied Germany history, he would know how vigorously Helmut Kohl sponsored Lothar de Maizie, the last prime minister of East Germany, following the reunification of East and West Germany. This was especially odd, considering how ministers who had been in office for only two months were quietly relieved of their duties. The reason was that East Germany's Ministry for State Security (Stasi) had a dossier filled with senstive information on Kohl. This former Prime Minister, the victim of a ruthless purge, probably never imagined that an Eastern Bloc government undergoing transitional justice would have a Bureau of Information Chief willing to pay him bundles of money to lecture on "transitional justice."
The transitional justice that Taiwan needs requires the kind of soul searching that is carved indelibly into one's bones and into one's heart. What is needed is an evolutionary metamorphosis, not two wrongs that will never make a right, not an endless cycle of tit for tat. An ignorant Hsieh Chi-wei is unqualified to discuss transitional justice. He and the irredeemably corrupt Chen Shui-bian are birds of a feather who are unqualified to criticize the justice system. They can only demean justice.
為謝志偉補課：何謂「德國轉型正義」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.06 03:06 am
民進黨執政以來已經換掉七名新聞局長，而從「比槍」局長，到（為地下電台）「剪綵」局長，再從「關台」局長，到「喬事」局長，個個前無古人，卻絕對不愁後無來者。唯以狂妄的程度而言，謝志偉毫無疑問又創造了另外一個前無古人的紀錄！
謝志偉憑什麼狂妄？用他的冷笑話來講，就是「留德」青山在。只因在德國學習德國文學，他就敢大談「轉型正義」，並重金禮聘一位「前東德總理」來台灣暢言「清算黨產」，又和完全不瞭解德國的陳水扁一唱一和，要學德國「清算檯面上一半的司法官」，而且要所有司法官上網公布自己的黨籍。
不知謝志偉的德國文學學得怎樣，但非常確定的是，從他滿口柴胡的「轉型正義」就知道，他不懂德國的歷史，更不懂德國的政治和法律，只憑他佔據了政府發言人的地位，儼然以為他說德國如何德國就是如何。這簡直丟光了所有留德學者的臉。
研究轉型正義的人都知道，在拉丁美洲之後，今天世界上最認真在談轉型正義的地方，就是從社會主義體制蛻變為資本主義體制的東歐，包含德國。後共產國家有私產、公產和黨產攪在一塊的問題，有冤假錯案平反的問題，有投奔自由遭到格殺的究責問題，有各種舊時代的功績罪過如何重新評等的問題，還有公安部門巨量的各種「黑材料」如何善後的問題。然而一直到今天，東歐人談了很多，真正能夠「處理」的轉型正義，卻是寥寥可數。原因絕對不在社會轉型的幅度還不夠大，或者對正義的領悟還不夠深，而在其轉型基本上是建立在整個社會的「蛻變」上。
所謂轉型正義，就是對今是昨非的徹底釐清，然而碰到蛻變型的轉型社會，今日的我就是從昨日的我蛻變而來，正義的清算要如何執行？是讓下一代的人清算上一代的人？還是讓舊遊戲規則下的一部分人回頭來清算另一部分人？在人人指向人人而是非犬牙交錯的困境下，轉型正義實際上變成了刻骨銘心的靈魂搜尋：千萬不要讓下一代人重蹈覆轍！
整個東歐唯一能多做一點的就是德國，原因很簡單，只有德國是通過合併（實際上是兼併）達成轉型的國家，資本主義的西德體制由外而內地加在東德的社會體制上，所以統一後的德國才有餘裕可以淘汰一半頭腦已經被社會主義醬透的司法官，因為還有西德的法官可以立刻補位，僅僅這一點，就沒有任何其他的東歐國家可以做得到。
台灣的社會轉型，與東歐比較，相形之下幅度較小：我們在經濟上從來就是資本主義體制，我們的民主轉型也被稱作「漸進式民主」。也因此在民主化以後，我們絕大多數的法律與重要社經機制不需要作任何調整。更重要的是，我們的轉型剛好和東德不一樣，而和所有其他東歐國家一樣，是一種集體的蛻變，如蛹之蛻化成蝶。所以，從今天的眼光來看，舊的遊戲規則雖有諸多不義之處，但整個社會由過去走向現在，請問，誰有資格去向誰執行轉型正義？是拜舊土地政策之賜的新地主？或是靠舊獎勵政策而搶進國際市場的企業主？請問，憑什麼曾經做過國民黨小組長、因為三民主義拿到高分而考上台大、因為熟讀熟用「戒嚴時代」的海商法才比所有同學先買房子的陳水扁，有權利主張清算一半的司法官？難道要由國務機要費案的「潛在被告」陳水扁來決定哪一半的司法官應被清算？包不包括將審判他的法官？
如果真正研究過德國轉型的歷史，謝志偉不會不知道末代東德總理麥齊爾先生為什麼在兩德統一後受到柯爾總理大力扶持，卻只作了兩個月的部長就黯然去職，因為他作東德公安部「爪耙子」的資料被人掀了出來。這位遭到無情清算的前總理大概從來沒想到，遠東會有另一個轉型民主國家的新聞局長，肯花大筆鈔票找他去當「轉型正義」的宣講師！
台灣所需要的轉型正義，正是刻骨銘心的靈魂搜尋，更是蛻變以後的精神昇華，而不是掌權者清算在野者的反覆輪迴。無知的謝志偉沒有資格談轉型正義，就和陷入集團性貪腐泥淖的陳水扁，沒有資格批評司法一樣；他們只會汙衊正義，糟蹋司法。
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 06, 2007
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party has had seven different Government Information Office (GIO) Chiefs since it assumed power. Every one of them has been, shall we say, unique. From "The Shooter," who mimicked gunning down reporters at a press conference, to "The Ribbon Cutter," who presided over ribbon cutting ceremonies for illegal pirate radio stations. From "The Terminator" who shut down cable television networks offensive to the ruling DPP, to "The Broker," who negotiated deals for those he was supposed to be regulating. But the most "unique" GIO Chief of all, has to be Hsieh Chi-wei, who has outdone them all.
Why is Hsieh Chi-wei so insufferably arrogant? Hsieh is proud of the fact that he studied German literature in Germany. Because he studied German literature in Germany, he presumes that he is qualified to hold forth on "transitional justice." That, and because he enticed a former East Germany premier with a large sum of money to come to Taiwan and demand that the KMT account for its party assets. He and Chen Shui-bian, who knows nothing about Germany whatsoever, are singing the identical tune. They are demanding that "half of the officials of the judiciary be purged" and that all officials of the judiciary be compelled to declare their party affiliation on the Internet.
How much Hsieh Chi-wei knows about German literature we can't say. But based on the nonsense he has spouted about "transitional justice," he knows nothing about German history, and even less about German politics and law. He is depending solely on his authority as government spokesman to assert that Germany is the way he says it is. He is a disgrace to every scholar who has ever studied in Germany.
Those who have studied transitional justice know that next to Latin America, the most discussed region is Eastern Europe, including Germany. This region has undergone a metamorphosis from socialism to capitalism. These post communist countries must sort out private property, public property and party property. They must right miscarriages of justice. They must investigate refugees gunned down while fleeing from behind the Iron Curtain. They must separate the sheep from the goats. They must also deal with the mountain of dossiers compiled by their secret police. As of today, Eastern Europeans have talked a lot about transitional justice. but those who have actually done something about it are few and far between. It is not that the scope of social reforms is not extensive enough, or that understanding is not deep enough. The problem is transitional justice depends upon the transformation of society as a whole.
So-called transitional justice, is simply making right today what was wrong yesterday. When we encounter a society undergoing transformation, when what I am today emerged from what I was yesterday, just how am I to carry out transitional justice? Is a new generation supposed to exact vengeance on the previous generation? Are some individuals playing by old rules, supposed to turn around and exact vengeance on others? When everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else, transitional justice becomes a form of soul searching. We must never allow a new generation to commit the same mistakes over and over again.
In all of Eastern Europe, only Germany was able to achieve some degree of transitional justice. The reason is simple. Germany reformed by means of merger, in reality, annexation. West Germany's capitalist system replaced East Germany's socialist system in toto. That is why post reunification Germany had good reason to eliminate judges whose heads were filled with socialist ideology. That is why their ranks had to be replaced by judges from West Germany. No other Eastern European country was able to achieve this.
The ROC's tranformation was less radical than Eastern Europe's. Our economy was always capitalist. Our political system was always "democratic gradualism." Therefore following democratization, most of our legal and social institutions needed no further modification. Most importantly, our transition was different from East Germany's. It was the same as other Eastern European countries. It was a collective transformation, akin to the transformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly. The old rules of the game may have been riddled with injustices, yet the society as a whole advanced from the past to the present. So the question is, precisely who has the right to demand transitional justice from whom? New landlords who worship the old land ownership policies? Corporate heads who depend on old incentives to seize international market share? What right does someone who was once a Kuomintang cell leader, who made it into National Taiwan University because he scored well on Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles, who was able to buy a house before all his classmates because he studied Martial Law era maritime law, presume to demand the purging of half the officials within the justice system? Is Chen Shui-bian, a potential defendant in the State Affairs Confidential Expenses case, to decide which half of the officials in the judiciary should be purged? Will these include the presiding judges in his corruption trial?
Had Hsieh Chi-wei really studied Germany history, he would know how vigorously Helmut Kohl sponsored Lothar de Maizie, the last prime minister of East Germany, following the reunification of East and West Germany. This was especially odd, considering how ministers who had been in office for only two months were quietly relieved of their duties. The reason was that East Germany's Ministry for State Security (Stasi) had a dossier filled with senstive information on Kohl. This former Prime Minister, the victim of a ruthless purge, probably never imagined that an Eastern Bloc government undergoing transitional justice would have a Bureau of Information Chief willing to pay him bundles of money to lecture on "transitional justice."
The transitional justice that Taiwan needs requires the kind of soul searching that is carved indelibly into one's bones and into one's heart. What is needed is an evolutionary metamorphosis, not two wrongs that will never make a right, not an endless cycle of tit for tat. An ignorant Hsieh Chi-wei is unqualified to discuss transitional justice. He and the irredeemably corrupt Chen Shui-bian are birds of a feather who are unqualified to criticize the justice system. They can only demean justice.
為謝志偉補課：何謂「德國轉型正義」？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.06 03:06 am
民進黨執政以來已經換掉七名新聞局長，而從「比槍」局長，到（為地下電台）「剪綵」局長，再從「關台」局長，到「喬事」局長，個個前無古人，卻絕對不愁後無來者。唯以狂妄的程度而言，謝志偉毫無疑問又創造了另外一個前無古人的紀錄！
謝志偉憑什麼狂妄？用他的冷笑話來講，就是「留德」青山在。只因在德國學習德國文學，他就敢大談「轉型正義」，並重金禮聘一位「前東德總理」來台灣暢言「清算黨產」，又和完全不瞭解德國的陳水扁一唱一和，要學德國「清算檯面上一半的司法官」，而且要所有司法官上網公布自己的黨籍。
不知謝志偉的德國文學學得怎樣，但非常確定的是，從他滿口柴胡的「轉型正義」就知道，他不懂德國的歷史，更不懂德國的政治和法律，只憑他佔據了政府發言人的地位，儼然以為他說德國如何德國就是如何。這簡直丟光了所有留德學者的臉。
研究轉型正義的人都知道，在拉丁美洲之後，今天世界上最認真在談轉型正義的地方，就是從社會主義體制蛻變為資本主義體制的東歐，包含德國。後共產國家有私產、公產和黨產攪在一塊的問題，有冤假錯案平反的問題，有投奔自由遭到格殺的究責問題，有各種舊時代的功績罪過如何重新評等的問題，還有公安部門巨量的各種「黑材料」如何善後的問題。然而一直到今天，東歐人談了很多，真正能夠「處理」的轉型正義，卻是寥寥可數。原因絕對不在社會轉型的幅度還不夠大，或者對正義的領悟還不夠深，而在其轉型基本上是建立在整個社會的「蛻變」上。
所謂轉型正義，就是對今是昨非的徹底釐清，然而碰到蛻變型的轉型社會，今日的我就是從昨日的我蛻變而來，正義的清算要如何執行？是讓下一代的人清算上一代的人？還是讓舊遊戲規則下的一部分人回頭來清算另一部分人？在人人指向人人而是非犬牙交錯的困境下，轉型正義實際上變成了刻骨銘心的靈魂搜尋：千萬不要讓下一代人重蹈覆轍！
整個東歐唯一能多做一點的就是德國，原因很簡單，只有德國是通過合併（實際上是兼併）達成轉型的國家，資本主義的西德體制由外而內地加在東德的社會體制上，所以統一後的德國才有餘裕可以淘汰一半頭腦已經被社會主義醬透的司法官，因為還有西德的法官可以立刻補位，僅僅這一點，就沒有任何其他的東歐國家可以做得到。
台灣的社會轉型，與東歐比較，相形之下幅度較小：我們在經濟上從來就是資本主義體制，我們的民主轉型也被稱作「漸進式民主」。也因此在民主化以後，我們絕大多數的法律與重要社經機制不需要作任何調整。更重要的是，我們的轉型剛好和東德不一樣，而和所有其他東歐國家一樣，是一種集體的蛻變，如蛹之蛻化成蝶。所以，從今天的眼光來看，舊的遊戲規則雖有諸多不義之處，但整個社會由過去走向現在，請問，誰有資格去向誰執行轉型正義？是拜舊土地政策之賜的新地主？或是靠舊獎勵政策而搶進國際市場的企業主？請問，憑什麼曾經做過國民黨小組長、因為三民主義拿到高分而考上台大、因為熟讀熟用「戒嚴時代」的海商法才比所有同學先買房子的陳水扁，有權利主張清算一半的司法官？難道要由國務機要費案的「潛在被告」陳水扁來決定哪一半的司法官應被清算？包不包括將審判他的法官？
如果真正研究過德國轉型的歷史，謝志偉不會不知道末代東德總理麥齊爾先生為什麼在兩德統一後受到柯爾總理大力扶持，卻只作了兩個月的部長就黯然去職，因為他作東德公安部「爪耙子」的資料被人掀了出來。這位遭到無情清算的前總理大概從來沒想到，遠東會有另一個轉型民主國家的新聞局長，肯花大筆鈔票找他去當「轉型正義」的宣講師！
台灣所需要的轉型正義，正是刻骨銘心的靈魂搜尋，更是蛻變以後的精神昇華，而不是掌權者清算在野者的反覆輪迴。無知的謝志偉沒有資格談轉型正義，就和陷入集團性貪腐泥淖的陳水扁，沒有資格批評司法一樣；他們只會汙衊正義，糟蹋司法。
Setting Limits on Democracy?
Setting Limits on Democracy?
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 09, 2007
Chen Shui-bian said that "one cannot set limits on democracy." Chen is wrong. The survival of a nation requires the setting of limits. If certain policies run the risk of harming or even destroying the nation, of course they must be off limits.
Chen Shui-bian argues that Taiwan independence is the result of "Taiwan's democratic political development." He argues that the US cannot on the one hand support "Taiwan's democracy" and on the other hand oppose Taiwan independence. Therefore he opposes US attempts to set limits on "Taiwan's democracy." He argues that Taiwan independence must be given the green light.
Under the democracy that prevails in regions controlled by the Republic of China, it is permissible to advocate Taiwan independence. One cannot forbid the advocacy of Taiwan independence in the public forum. But whether Taiwan independence accords with the requirements of national survival, and is something that political leaders should be promoting, is another matter altogether. Are Taiwan independence ideologues truly unaware that Taiwan independence will bring calamity? Are they truly determined to bring about their own destruction?
Following the First World War, the shackles imposed by the Treaty of Versailles reduced Germany to the status of an "abnormal country." As a result, in accordance with democratic procedures, and inside the political framework of the Weimar Republic, a political party that advocated anti-Semitism and foreign expansionism appeared, the Nazi Party. In other words, Germany at that time set no limits on the Nazi Party. But in retrospect, we see that Hitler was using democracy to hijack the German nation, to exceed the limits of what was in the interest of Germany's national survival. The Nazis used democracy to prevail politically. By the time they had achieved their dreams, they had destroyed the German nation.
Today the Republic of China government faces a similar situation. Question One: Are the Chinese people on Taiwan really prepared to pay any price for Taiwan independence, and even break with the US? Question Two: Does Taiwan independence in fact accord with the requirements of the nation's survival?
In response to the first question, Chen Shui-bian professes confidence. He argues that opinion polls confirm a trend toward Taiwan independence. Regarding this, we have reservations. Chen Shui-bian is clearly attempting to inflate the significance of "Taiwanese consciousness," spinning it as "Taiwan independence consciousness." He is manipulating "Taiwanese consciousness," using it to justify his own "Taiwan independence consciousness." Is the public on Taiwan so ignorant as to break with the US over the issue of Taiwan independence? Surely not? On the other hand, Hitler was able to hijack Germany by means of the democratic process and lead it toward Nazism. Would it be so surprising if Chen Shui-bian hijacked Taiwan by means of the democratic process and led it toward Taiwan independence? Therefore the second question is the key. Does Taiwan independence accord with the strategic requirements of the Republic of China's survival? Did Nazism accord with the requirements of Germany's national survival?
To assert that "one cannot set limits on democracy" is populist demagoguery. Suppose someone advocates "exempting everyone from paying taxes?" Obviously democracy has limits. Suppose someone advocates "resorting to force to compel a corrupt president to step down?" Obviously democracy has limits. National leaders must defend democracy. They must never lead the nation toward disaster in the name of democracy. Hitler violated this rule. He exceeded this limit. So have innumerable mini-Hitlers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Their crime was always the same: They used democracy to destroy the nation.
If Chen Shui-bian were still a dissident leader during the "party outsider" era, he would be free to shout "Long live Taiwan independence!" But Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party are the Republic of China's ruling elite. Yet they are still lying to themselves and the public. They are leading the nation to the brink of disaster.
Can one set limits on democracy? Of course one can. Of course one must. One must set limits on the authority of leaders in positions of power. They must not be permitted to put the survival of the nation at risk. Chen Shui-bian must ask himself whether he has exceeded these limits, whether he has put the survival of the nation at risk.
To escape responsibility for the crisis of authority caused by his greed and corruption, Chen shifted public attention to his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan." On the one hand he insisted that his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" had nothing to do with Taiwan independence. On the other hand he aggressively pushed his "Four Demands" and "UN membership under a New National Title." When he did this, did he exceed these limits? When his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" caused a rift in Taipei/Washington relations, when US trust was shattered, when Taipei found itself at loggerheads with its most important international backer, did he exceed these limits? On the one hand Chen Shui-bian admits that "Taiwan independence is both self-deception and deception of others." On the other hand he continues throwing gasoline on the flames of Taiwan independence. When he does this, is he exceeding these limits?
Democracy allows a variety of different viewpoints. In this respect, it sets no limits. But political leaders' actions must be limited. They cannot be permitted to engage in mass deception. Their national policies must have limits. They must maximize national welfare and minimize national misfortunes. They must not be permitted to lead the nation down the path to oblivion.
It is one thing to hold forth on how "One cannot set limits on democracy." But Chen Shui-bian has exceeded every one of his limits. He has exceeded his moral limits. He has exceeded his legal limits. He has led the nation to brink of disaster.
民主無紅線，國家政策不能沒有紅線！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.05 03:17 am
陳水扁說，民主不可畫「紅線」。這話說得沒錯。但是，國家的生存政策卻不能沒有「紅線」；如果某種國家政策可能導致國家重傷或敗亡，當然必須畫下「紅線」。
陳水扁現在的說法不啻指出：台獨是台灣民主政治發展的歸趨，美國不可一方面支持台灣民主，另一方面卻反對台獨；因此，他反對美國給台灣民主畫上任何「紅線」，主張非給台獨「開綠燈」不可。
在台灣的民主運作中，當然會出現台獨的主張；不可能畫一紅線，禁止在民主論壇中出現台獨主張。不過，台獨是否適合成為台灣主政者執意推動的國家生存策略，那卻是另一回事。難道明知台獨會禍及台灣，也要自尋死路？
例如，在第一次世界大戰後，由於凡爾賽條約的束縛，使德國淪為「不正常國家」；因此，在威瑪共和的體制中，經民主機制，出現了納粹黨，主張反猶太的種族主義及對外侵略。也就是說，就「民主」而言，德國當時並未為納粹畫下「紅線」；但是，如今回顧，希特勒卻是假借「民主」，挾持著德國踰越了國家生存策略的「紅線」。納粹雖假借「民主」而得逞，但毀了國家。
如今，台灣儼然也面臨了類似的情境：一、台灣的「民主」是否真正不惜代價地支持台獨（包括不惜與美國反目）？二、台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存策略？
對上述第一個問題，陳水扁頗有自信，他舉出許多民調來證實傾向台獨的民意高漲。對於此點，我們略有保留。陳水扁顯然是將普遍存在的「台灣意識」扭曲並擴張解釋為「台獨意識」；且其實際操作手段，亦是假借「台灣意識」來為他的「台獨意識」背書。難道台灣民眾會愚昧至不惜與美國翻臉也要搞台獨？不過，退一步說，希特勒既能經由民主機制將德國帶往納粹運動，則若謂陳水扁亦能經由民主操作將台灣推向台獨運動，似也不足為奇。於是，第二個問題遂成關鍵：台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存政策？此一問題，正如應問納粹是否為符合德國國家利益的生存政策？
所謂民主沒有「紅線」，其實是一種民粹論述。如果出現主張「全民免稅」的「民主」，自然會有「紅線」；如果出現主張「以暴動逼迫貪腐總統下台」的「民主」，自然也會有「紅線」。國家主政者當然應當護持「民主」，唯他的「紅線」應在不可藉民主之名將國家帶向導致敗亡的道路。希特勒犯過這種錯，且在亞非拉一幕接一幕的民主悲劇中，更曾出現過無數小一號的希特勒。他們千篇一律的罪行是：騙過民主，輸了國家！
陳水扁若仍是「黨外」時代的民運人士，大可高喊「台獨萬歲」；但是，陳水扁與民進黨已是中華民國的執政者，竟仍玩弄「自欺欺人」的台獨騙術，那就是踩過了「紅線」。
即使民主沒有紅線，但主政者的執政責任及政治道德卻不能沒有紅線，國家的生存政策更不能沒有紅線。陳水扁應當自問：是否已踰越了執政者對國家責任及政治道德的紅線？是否已踩過了國家生存策略的紅線？
例如，陳水扁為了掙脫他因貪腐而造成的權力危機，竟轉移焦點將國家捲入「入聯公投」的台獨風暴中，這是否踰越了政治道德的紅線？另如，陳水扁一方面偽稱「入聯公投」不是操弄台獨，但另一方面又揚言「四要」，「是以新的國家名義入聯」，這是否踰越了政治誠信的紅線？再如，「入聯公投」使台美友誼受到重傷，台美信任形同崩盤，且使台灣最重要的「國際維生支柱」美國與台灣反目，更使台灣突然站在反美的立場，這是否踰越了執政責任的紅線？又如，陳水扁一方面自承「台獨是自欺欺人」，另一方面又對台獨政策火上加油，這是否踰越了國家生存政策的紅線？
民主容許見仁見智，沒有紅線；但主政者的執政責任卻不能沒有紅線，不可自欺欺人，愚民以逞；尤其，主政者主導的國家政策更不能沒有紅線，必須趨吉避凶，造福禳禍，不可「自欺欺人」，陷國家於危境死地。
民主沒有紅線，盡可各抒己見，放言高論。但陳水扁作為一名主政者，卻踰越了政治道德的紅線，踰越了執政責任的紅線，也踰越了國家生存政策的紅線。
United Daily New editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 09, 2007
Chen Shui-bian said that "one cannot set limits on democracy." Chen is wrong. The survival of a nation requires the setting of limits. If certain policies run the risk of harming or even destroying the nation, of course they must be off limits.
Chen Shui-bian argues that Taiwan independence is the result of "Taiwan's democratic political development." He argues that the US cannot on the one hand support "Taiwan's democracy" and on the other hand oppose Taiwan independence. Therefore he opposes US attempts to set limits on "Taiwan's democracy." He argues that Taiwan independence must be given the green light.
Under the democracy that prevails in regions controlled by the Republic of China, it is permissible to advocate Taiwan independence. One cannot forbid the advocacy of Taiwan independence in the public forum. But whether Taiwan independence accords with the requirements of national survival, and is something that political leaders should be promoting, is another matter altogether. Are Taiwan independence ideologues truly unaware that Taiwan independence will bring calamity? Are they truly determined to bring about their own destruction?
Following the First World War, the shackles imposed by the Treaty of Versailles reduced Germany to the status of an "abnormal country." As a result, in accordance with democratic procedures, and inside the political framework of the Weimar Republic, a political party that advocated anti-Semitism and foreign expansionism appeared, the Nazi Party. In other words, Germany at that time set no limits on the Nazi Party. But in retrospect, we see that Hitler was using democracy to hijack the German nation, to exceed the limits of what was in the interest of Germany's national survival. The Nazis used democracy to prevail politically. By the time they had achieved their dreams, they had destroyed the German nation.
Today the Republic of China government faces a similar situation. Question One: Are the Chinese people on Taiwan really prepared to pay any price for Taiwan independence, and even break with the US? Question Two: Does Taiwan independence in fact accord with the requirements of the nation's survival?
In response to the first question, Chen Shui-bian professes confidence. He argues that opinion polls confirm a trend toward Taiwan independence. Regarding this, we have reservations. Chen Shui-bian is clearly attempting to inflate the significance of "Taiwanese consciousness," spinning it as "Taiwan independence consciousness." He is manipulating "Taiwanese consciousness," using it to justify his own "Taiwan independence consciousness." Is the public on Taiwan so ignorant as to break with the US over the issue of Taiwan independence? Surely not? On the other hand, Hitler was able to hijack Germany by means of the democratic process and lead it toward Nazism. Would it be so surprising if Chen Shui-bian hijacked Taiwan by means of the democratic process and led it toward Taiwan independence? Therefore the second question is the key. Does Taiwan independence accord with the strategic requirements of the Republic of China's survival? Did Nazism accord with the requirements of Germany's national survival?
To assert that "one cannot set limits on democracy" is populist demagoguery. Suppose someone advocates "exempting everyone from paying taxes?" Obviously democracy has limits. Suppose someone advocates "resorting to force to compel a corrupt president to step down?" Obviously democracy has limits. National leaders must defend democracy. They must never lead the nation toward disaster in the name of democracy. Hitler violated this rule. He exceeded this limit. So have innumerable mini-Hitlers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Their crime was always the same: They used democracy to destroy the nation.
If Chen Shui-bian were still a dissident leader during the "party outsider" era, he would be free to shout "Long live Taiwan independence!" But Chen Shui-bian and the Democratic Progressive Party are the Republic of China's ruling elite. Yet they are still lying to themselves and the public. They are leading the nation to the brink of disaster.
Can one set limits on democracy? Of course one can. Of course one must. One must set limits on the authority of leaders in positions of power. They must not be permitted to put the survival of the nation at risk. Chen Shui-bian must ask himself whether he has exceeded these limits, whether he has put the survival of the nation at risk.
To escape responsibility for the crisis of authority caused by his greed and corruption, Chen shifted public attention to his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan." On the one hand he insisted that his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" had nothing to do with Taiwan independence. On the other hand he aggressively pushed his "Four Demands" and "UN membership under a New National Title." When he did this, did he exceed these limits? When his "Plebiscite to Join the UN under the Name of Taiwan" caused a rift in Taipei/Washington relations, when US trust was shattered, when Taipei found itself at loggerheads with its most important international backer, did he exceed these limits? On the one hand Chen Shui-bian admits that "Taiwan independence is both self-deception and deception of others." On the other hand he continues throwing gasoline on the flames of Taiwan independence. When he does this, is he exceeding these limits?
Democracy allows a variety of different viewpoints. In this respect, it sets no limits. But political leaders' actions must be limited. They cannot be permitted to engage in mass deception. Their national policies must have limits. They must maximize national welfare and minimize national misfortunes. They must not be permitted to lead the nation down the path to oblivion.
It is one thing to hold forth on how "One cannot set limits on democracy." But Chen Shui-bian has exceeded every one of his limits. He has exceeded his moral limits. He has exceeded his legal limits. He has led the nation to brink of disaster.
民主無紅線，國家政策不能沒有紅線！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.05 03:17 am
陳水扁說，民主不可畫「紅線」。這話說得沒錯。但是，國家的生存政策卻不能沒有「紅線」；如果某種國家政策可能導致國家重傷或敗亡，當然必須畫下「紅線」。
陳水扁現在的說法不啻指出：台獨是台灣民主政治發展的歸趨，美國不可一方面支持台灣民主，另一方面卻反對台獨；因此，他反對美國給台灣民主畫上任何「紅線」，主張非給台獨「開綠燈」不可。
在台灣的民主運作中，當然會出現台獨的主張；不可能畫一紅線，禁止在民主論壇中出現台獨主張。不過，台獨是否適合成為台灣主政者執意推動的國家生存策略，那卻是另一回事。難道明知台獨會禍及台灣，也要自尋死路？
例如，在第一次世界大戰後，由於凡爾賽條約的束縛，使德國淪為「不正常國家」；因此，在威瑪共和的體制中，經民主機制，出現了納粹黨，主張反猶太的種族主義及對外侵略。也就是說，就「民主」而言，德國當時並未為納粹畫下「紅線」；但是，如今回顧，希特勒卻是假借「民主」，挾持著德國踰越了國家生存策略的「紅線」。納粹雖假借「民主」而得逞，但毀了國家。
如今，台灣儼然也面臨了類似的情境：一、台灣的「民主」是否真正不惜代價地支持台獨（包括不惜與美國反目）？二、台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存策略？
對上述第一個問題，陳水扁頗有自信，他舉出許多民調來證實傾向台獨的民意高漲。對於此點，我們略有保留。陳水扁顯然是將普遍存在的「台灣意識」扭曲並擴張解釋為「台獨意識」；且其實際操作手段，亦是假借「台灣意識」來為他的「台獨意識」背書。難道台灣民眾會愚昧至不惜與美國翻臉也要搞台獨？不過，退一步說，希特勒既能經由民主機制將德國帶往納粹運動，則若謂陳水扁亦能經由民主操作將台灣推向台獨運動，似也不足為奇。於是，第二個問題遂成關鍵：台獨是否為符合台灣利益的國家生存政策？此一問題，正如應問納粹是否為符合德國國家利益的生存政策？
所謂民主沒有「紅線」，其實是一種民粹論述。如果出現主張「全民免稅」的「民主」，自然會有「紅線」；如果出現主張「以暴動逼迫貪腐總統下台」的「民主」，自然也會有「紅線」。國家主政者當然應當護持「民主」，唯他的「紅線」應在不可藉民主之名將國家帶向導致敗亡的道路。希特勒犯過這種錯，且在亞非拉一幕接一幕的民主悲劇中，更曾出現過無數小一號的希特勒。他們千篇一律的罪行是：騙過民主，輸了國家！
陳水扁若仍是「黨外」時代的民運人士，大可高喊「台獨萬歲」；但是，陳水扁與民進黨已是中華民國的執政者，竟仍玩弄「自欺欺人」的台獨騙術，那就是踩過了「紅線」。
即使民主沒有紅線，但主政者的執政責任及政治道德卻不能沒有紅線，國家的生存政策更不能沒有紅線。陳水扁應當自問：是否已踰越了執政者對國家責任及政治道德的紅線？是否已踩過了國家生存策略的紅線？
例如，陳水扁為了掙脫他因貪腐而造成的權力危機，竟轉移焦點將國家捲入「入聯公投」的台獨風暴中，這是否踰越了政治道德的紅線？另如，陳水扁一方面偽稱「入聯公投」不是操弄台獨，但另一方面又揚言「四要」，「是以新的國家名義入聯」，這是否踰越了政治誠信的紅線？再如，「入聯公投」使台美友誼受到重傷，台美信任形同崩盤，且使台灣最重要的「國際維生支柱」美國與台灣反目，更使台灣突然站在反美的立場，這是否踰越了執政責任的紅線？又如，陳水扁一方面自承「台獨是自欺欺人」，另一方面又對台獨政策火上加油，這是否踰越了國家生存政策的紅線？
民主容許見仁見智，沒有紅線；但主政者的執政責任卻不能沒有紅線，不可自欺欺人，愚民以逞；尤其，主政者主導的國家政策更不能沒有紅線，必須趨吉避凶，造福禳禍，不可「自欺欺人」，陷國家於危境死地。
民主沒有紅線，盡可各抒己見，放言高論。但陳水扁作為一名主政者，卻踰越了政治道德的紅線，踰越了執政責任的紅線，也踰越了國家生存政策的紅線。
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Painting Judges Blue will only Destroy the Justice System
Painting Judges Blue will only Destroy the Justice System
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2007
How difficult is it to destroy the Republic of China's (ROC) system of justice? Apparently not that difficult. All you have to do is accuse judges of being Pan Blue in their political affiliation. Just look at how judges have been vilified over the past two days. First the president went on TV and alleged that seventy to eighty percent of all judges were Pan Blues. He accused them of being concerned only with Blue and Green, not black and white. The president no sooner finished his diatribe, than the Executive Yuan conveniently chimed in. The Government Information Office (GIO) called a press conference demanding that the Kuomintang (KMT) make public how many Judicial Yuan officials have been party members since martial law was lifted. The GIO demanded that any judge who had participated in a court case involving political figures disclose his party affiliation, if any, on the Internet. Rather than quietly await a possible guilty verdict, why not launch a preemptive attack by accusing the entire judicial system of Pan Blue political bias?
How much have members of ROC judicial system, from high level administrators to district court judges, quietly sacrificed over the years to establish an independent and professional judiciary? How much wisdom and intellect has been invested in judicial reform? Now that it is time to reap the rewards, all it takes nullify the entire legal community's years of sacrifice, is a single speech from President Chen and a single press conference from the GIO. With such a president and such a ruling party taking the lead in destroying the destroying public trust in the nation's judiciary, what point is there in judicial reform?
After this, how will judges be able to try political cases? We already have our answer. Any verdict favorable to the Green Camp will be trumpeted as "Solomonic," as the "Triumph of Justice." Any verdict favorable to the Blue Camp will be castigated as "concerned only about Blue and Green, indifferent about black and white," or even denounced as the "Demise of the Judiciary." The judge will be asked to reveal his party affiliation. He may even be publicly slandered and vilified. A nation's judges are only permitted to find opposition party leaders guilty. They are not permitted to rule against ruling party officials. Is this the "Triumph of Justice?" What word is there for this kind of intimidation of judges, other than "Political Terror?" Can judges be liberated from political influence? If judges live in fear, can they really champion justice for the common man?
Remember the KMT/PFP lawsuit to nullify Chen Shui-bian's "election" in 2004? The court ruled against the KMT/PFP. Following the court's decision the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ringingly declared that the judiciary had returned a just verdict, granting Chen the justice he deserved. Using President Chen and the DPP's logic, couldn't the KMT dismiss the judges' ruling back then as "concerned only with Blue and Green, indifferent to black and white?" Couldn't it have demanded that the presiding judge make a public admission of his political affiliation?
If President Chen were really concerned about "judicial intervention in politics," that would be one thing. Alas his tirade against the judiciary contained an escape clause. Last month he publicly accused the judiciary of attempting to influence the presidential campaign. He touched off a storm of controversy in legal circles. His allegations were considered attempts to influence the verdict in the Ma Ying-jeou case. This time he publicly accused seventy to eighty percent of the members of the judiciary of harboring Pan Blue partisan political bias. Suddenly changing the subject, he said that he once promised to resign if found guilty in the State Affairs Confidential Expense case. He said that as long as the judiciary is independent and not subject to Blue, Green, or Red Shirt Army political influence, then of course his promise to resign is binding upon him. But then he added "If this is not the case however, then I would have to reconsider." Isn't his meaning clear enough? If when the time comes the judge in Chen's State Affairs Confidential Expense case finds him guilty, Chen intends to accuse the judge of Pan Blue political bias, citing it as an excuse to renege on his promise to resign. We can now safely predict the kind of vilification the judge in Chen's State Affairs Confidential Expense case will be subjected to in the event he rules against Chen and disappoints Green Camp expectations.
Government Information Office Bureau Chief Hsieh Chi-wei joined the lynch mob. He publicly demanded that judges presiding over trials of political figures reveal their political affiliation on the Internet. What he failed to do was to cite any legal basis for such demands. Still less did he consult Article 80 of the Constitution: "Judges must transcend partisanship, rule independently based on the law, and resist any and all interference." Instead he righteously intoned: This is "transitional justice." We feel compelled to respond: "Transitional justice? Transitional justice? How many injustices do you intend to commit in the name of transitional justice?" The ruling party, not content to destroy the judicial system, now wants tarnish the concept of "transitional justice." Nobody denies that during the martial law era the judicial system was under the thumb of the party/state system. But if the "lifting of martial law" qualified as a form of transition, wasn't its biggest contribution, wasn't the most important "justice" it established, the elimination of "Big Brother" from inside your head? Even judges' heads? Now the ruling DPP wants to use these obscene methods to intimidate judges. What is this, but brand new "Big Brothers," this time in Green uniforms?"
As he ponders the realpolitik of his political power, we hope Chen Shui-bian and the Green Camp will cease its abuse of the judiciary. Perhaps this is an unrealistic hope. The legal community must prepare for vicious attacks. Given the political climate, the only way judges can withstand vilification is to rededicate themselves to comporting themselves more professionally and rendering more independent judgments.
中國時報 2007.09.04
政治抹藍法官 只會摧毀司法
中時社論
要摧毀台灣的司法很困難嗎？好像一點都不難，給所有法官扣頂藍帽子就成了！看看這兩天法官們是怎麼被政治糟蹋：先是總統上特定電視台接受專訪，直指法官超過七八成都偏藍，還說司法只問顏色，不問是非；總統話才剛說完，行政院立即有效率的配合，新聞局馬上就開記者會要求國民黨公布解嚴至今在司法部門有多少黨員？更要求凡涉及政治人物司法案件的法官，應上網公布其黨籍或有無黨籍。反正千言萬語一句話，與其靜待司法判決，不如先藉「政治抹藍」毀掉司法！
過去幾年，台灣的司法體系從司法行政高層到基層法官，為營造一個獨立、專業的審判空間，曾經默默付出多少努力？一樁樁司改方案的推出，又是費盡多少智慧與心力？如今正逢成果收割之際，就陳總統的這麼一句話，新聞局的這麼一場記者會，整個法界夙夜匪懈的付出與奉獻，就這麼輕易地給歸零了！試問：有這樣的總統，有這樣的執政黨在帶頭摧毀司法官的形象，司法改革努力個半天究竟是所為何來？
至今而後，法官還能怎樣審理政治案件呢？答案不已經在那兒了嗎？凡是判綠營勝訴的，就是「公正不阿」，就是「彰顯正義」，而凡是判藍營勝訴的，就是「只問顏色，不問是非」，甚至是「司法死了」，必須公布法官黨藉，甚至不惜公開將之詆毀鬥臭。一個國家的法官只准判在野黨有罪，不准判執政黨敗訴，這還能叫「司法正義」嗎？這種威嚇能不叫所有司法官都面臨「寒蟬效應」嗎？能不讓所有法官在審理相關案件時心中全無陰影嗎？如果司法官都開始害怕，他們還能為弱勢小民伸張正義嗎？
還記得國親對陳水扁所提的「當選無效」訴訟嗎？當時法院判國親敗訴定讞，民進黨在判決後立即聲明司法已經還了陳總統一個公道，如果沿用陳總統與民進黨今天的邏輯，國民黨是不是也可用同樣的推理，硬指法官的判決是「只問顏色，不問是非」？甚至強要承審法官公布黨籍呢？
其實陳總統若真是為「司法介入政治」憂心或許還好，問題是他對司法的指控還是預埋了重要伏筆，一個多月前他就曾公開指控司法人員企圖左右各黨總統候選人的競選活動，當時已經引發法界爭議，被認為是企圖影響馬案判決；這次他又公開說有超過七、八成的司法人員可能立場偏藍，接下來語鋒一轉，表示他曾說國務機要費案一審有罪就下台，如果司法人員獨立超然，不受藍綠、政治、輿論、紅衫軍等影響，他說過的話當然算話，但「如果顛倒，就要考慮」。這不等於已經挑明了說了嗎？如果屆時法官對國務機要費案的一審判決有罪，他大可以法官立場偏藍為由，名正言順地拒絕下台了！我們現在或許就可以模擬一下，屆時審理國務機要費的法官所做出的判決，若是既不符扁意，又不符綠營預期，他會怎樣地被修理！
同樣加入羞辱法官的是行政院新聞局長謝志偉，他公開要求處理政治人物司法案件的法官須上網公布其黨籍或有無黨籍，卻不交代這種做法的依據在哪裡？更不問憲法第八十條早已經揭示：「法官須超出黨派以外，依據法律獨立審判，不受任何干涉。」卻振振有詞地美其名曰：這是「轉型正義」。我們真想在這說一句：「轉型正義、轉型正義，如今台灣多少罪惡假汝之名而行！」執政黨摧毀司法還不滿足，還想把「轉型正義」這個概念也一併玷汙掉。沒人否認戒嚴時期的司法確曾受到黨國體制的箝制，而如果「解嚴」算做是一種轉型，那麼它最大的貢獻，所塑造的最重要「正義」，不就是將人們（包括法官）心中的「小警總」都去除了？如今執政黨藉由這種下流手段公開威嚇法官，不正是擺明要將全新的「綠色小警總」，重新樹立在所有法官的心中嗎？
在捍衛政權的現實考量下，期待陳水扁與綠營此刻停止糟蹋司法，恐怕是奢求，反倒是法界得要對未來更凶險的攻擊做好心理準備了。而在這種政治惡質的環境下，法官們也惟有以更專業的判決、更獨立的審判，才能回應所有政治的抹黑。
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2007
How difficult is it to destroy the Republic of China's (ROC) system of justice? Apparently not that difficult. All you have to do is accuse judges of being Pan Blue in their political affiliation. Just look at how judges have been vilified over the past two days. First the president went on TV and alleged that seventy to eighty percent of all judges were Pan Blues. He accused them of being concerned only with Blue and Green, not black and white. The president no sooner finished his diatribe, than the Executive Yuan conveniently chimed in. The Government Information Office (GIO) called a press conference demanding that the Kuomintang (KMT) make public how many Judicial Yuan officials have been party members since martial law was lifted. The GIO demanded that any judge who had participated in a court case involving political figures disclose his party affiliation, if any, on the Internet. Rather than quietly await a possible guilty verdict, why not launch a preemptive attack by accusing the entire judicial system of Pan Blue political bias?
How much have members of ROC judicial system, from high level administrators to district court judges, quietly sacrificed over the years to establish an independent and professional judiciary? How much wisdom and intellect has been invested in judicial reform? Now that it is time to reap the rewards, all it takes nullify the entire legal community's years of sacrifice, is a single speech from President Chen and a single press conference from the GIO. With such a president and such a ruling party taking the lead in destroying the destroying public trust in the nation's judiciary, what point is there in judicial reform?
After this, how will judges be able to try political cases? We already have our answer. Any verdict favorable to the Green Camp will be trumpeted as "Solomonic," as the "Triumph of Justice." Any verdict favorable to the Blue Camp will be castigated as "concerned only about Blue and Green, indifferent about black and white," or even denounced as the "Demise of the Judiciary." The judge will be asked to reveal his party affiliation. He may even be publicly slandered and vilified. A nation's judges are only permitted to find opposition party leaders guilty. They are not permitted to rule against ruling party officials. Is this the "Triumph of Justice?" What word is there for this kind of intimidation of judges, other than "Political Terror?" Can judges be liberated from political influence? If judges live in fear, can they really champion justice for the common man?
Remember the KMT/PFP lawsuit to nullify Chen Shui-bian's "election" in 2004? The court ruled against the KMT/PFP. Following the court's decision the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ringingly declared that the judiciary had returned a just verdict, granting Chen the justice he deserved. Using President Chen and the DPP's logic, couldn't the KMT dismiss the judges' ruling back then as "concerned only with Blue and Green, indifferent to black and white?" Couldn't it have demanded that the presiding judge make a public admission of his political affiliation?
If President Chen were really concerned about "judicial intervention in politics," that would be one thing. Alas his tirade against the judiciary contained an escape clause. Last month he publicly accused the judiciary of attempting to influence the presidential campaign. He touched off a storm of controversy in legal circles. His allegations were considered attempts to influence the verdict in the Ma Ying-jeou case. This time he publicly accused seventy to eighty percent of the members of the judiciary of harboring Pan Blue partisan political bias. Suddenly changing the subject, he said that he once promised to resign if found guilty in the State Affairs Confidential Expense case. He said that as long as the judiciary is independent and not subject to Blue, Green, or Red Shirt Army political influence, then of course his promise to resign is binding upon him. But then he added "If this is not the case however, then I would have to reconsider." Isn't his meaning clear enough? If when the time comes the judge in Chen's State Affairs Confidential Expense case finds him guilty, Chen intends to accuse the judge of Pan Blue political bias, citing it as an excuse to renege on his promise to resign. We can now safely predict the kind of vilification the judge in Chen's State Affairs Confidential Expense case will be subjected to in the event he rules against Chen and disappoints Green Camp expectations.
Government Information Office Bureau Chief Hsieh Chi-wei joined the lynch mob. He publicly demanded that judges presiding over trials of political figures reveal their political affiliation on the Internet. What he failed to do was to cite any legal basis for such demands. Still less did he consult Article 80 of the Constitution: "Judges must transcend partisanship, rule independently based on the law, and resist any and all interference." Instead he righteously intoned: This is "transitional justice." We feel compelled to respond: "Transitional justice? Transitional justice? How many injustices do you intend to commit in the name of transitional justice?" The ruling party, not content to destroy the judicial system, now wants tarnish the concept of "transitional justice." Nobody denies that during the martial law era the judicial system was under the thumb of the party/state system. But if the "lifting of martial law" qualified as a form of transition, wasn't its biggest contribution, wasn't the most important "justice" it established, the elimination of "Big Brother" from inside your head? Even judges' heads? Now the ruling DPP wants to use these obscene methods to intimidate judges. What is this, but brand new "Big Brothers," this time in Green uniforms?"
As he ponders the realpolitik of his political power, we hope Chen Shui-bian and the Green Camp will cease its abuse of the judiciary. Perhaps this is an unrealistic hope. The legal community must prepare for vicious attacks. Given the political climate, the only way judges can withstand vilification is to rededicate themselves to comporting themselves more professionally and rendering more independent judgments.
中國時報 2007.09.04
政治抹藍法官 只會摧毀司法
中時社論
要摧毀台灣的司法很困難嗎？好像一點都不難，給所有法官扣頂藍帽子就成了！看看這兩天法官們是怎麼被政治糟蹋：先是總統上特定電視台接受專訪，直指法官超過七八成都偏藍，還說司法只問顏色，不問是非；總統話才剛說完，行政院立即有效率的配合，新聞局馬上就開記者會要求國民黨公布解嚴至今在司法部門有多少黨員？更要求凡涉及政治人物司法案件的法官，應上網公布其黨籍或有無黨籍。反正千言萬語一句話，與其靜待司法判決，不如先藉「政治抹藍」毀掉司法！
過去幾年，台灣的司法體系從司法行政高層到基層法官，為營造一個獨立、專業的審判空間，曾經默默付出多少努力？一樁樁司改方案的推出，又是費盡多少智慧與心力？如今正逢成果收割之際，就陳總統的這麼一句話，新聞局的這麼一場記者會，整個法界夙夜匪懈的付出與奉獻，就這麼輕易地給歸零了！試問：有這樣的總統，有這樣的執政黨在帶頭摧毀司法官的形象，司法改革努力個半天究竟是所為何來？
至今而後，法官還能怎樣審理政治案件呢？答案不已經在那兒了嗎？凡是判綠營勝訴的，就是「公正不阿」，就是「彰顯正義」，而凡是判藍營勝訴的，就是「只問顏色，不問是非」，甚至是「司法死了」，必須公布法官黨藉，甚至不惜公開將之詆毀鬥臭。一個國家的法官只准判在野黨有罪，不准判執政黨敗訴，這還能叫「司法正義」嗎？這種威嚇能不叫所有司法官都面臨「寒蟬效應」嗎？能不讓所有法官在審理相關案件時心中全無陰影嗎？如果司法官都開始害怕，他們還能為弱勢小民伸張正義嗎？
還記得國親對陳水扁所提的「當選無效」訴訟嗎？當時法院判國親敗訴定讞，民進黨在判決後立即聲明司法已經還了陳總統一個公道，如果沿用陳總統與民進黨今天的邏輯，國民黨是不是也可用同樣的推理，硬指法官的判決是「只問顏色，不問是非」？甚至強要承審法官公布黨籍呢？
其實陳總統若真是為「司法介入政治」憂心或許還好，問題是他對司法的指控還是預埋了重要伏筆，一個多月前他就曾公開指控司法人員企圖左右各黨總統候選人的競選活動，當時已經引發法界爭議，被認為是企圖影響馬案判決；這次他又公開說有超過七、八成的司法人員可能立場偏藍，接下來語鋒一轉，表示他曾說國務機要費案一審有罪就下台，如果司法人員獨立超然，不受藍綠、政治、輿論、紅衫軍等影響，他說過的話當然算話，但「如果顛倒，就要考慮」。這不等於已經挑明了說了嗎？如果屆時法官對國務機要費案的一審判決有罪，他大可以法官立場偏藍為由，名正言順地拒絕下台了！我們現在或許就可以模擬一下，屆時審理國務機要費的法官所做出的判決，若是既不符扁意，又不符綠營預期，他會怎樣地被修理！
同樣加入羞辱法官的是行政院新聞局長謝志偉，他公開要求處理政治人物司法案件的法官須上網公布其黨籍或有無黨籍，卻不交代這種做法的依據在哪裡？更不問憲法第八十條早已經揭示：「法官須超出黨派以外，依據法律獨立審判，不受任何干涉。」卻振振有詞地美其名曰：這是「轉型正義」。我們真想在這說一句：「轉型正義、轉型正義，如今台灣多少罪惡假汝之名而行！」執政黨摧毀司法還不滿足，還想把「轉型正義」這個概念也一併玷汙掉。沒人否認戒嚴時期的司法確曾受到黨國體制的箝制，而如果「解嚴」算做是一種轉型，那麼它最大的貢獻，所塑造的最重要「正義」，不就是將人們（包括法官）心中的「小警總」都去除了？如今執政黨藉由這種下流手段公開威嚇法官，不正是擺明要將全新的「綠色小警總」，重新樹立在所有法官的心中嗎？
在捍衛政權的現實考量下，期待陳水扁與綠營此刻停止糟蹋司法，恐怕是奢求，反倒是法界得要對未來更凶險的攻擊做好心理準備了。而在這種政治惡質的環境下，法官們也惟有以更專業的判決、更獨立的審判，才能回應所有政治的抹黑。
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Taiwan Independence Leaders Rejoice!
Taiwan Independence Leaders Rejoice!
The Republic of China is not a Country!
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2007
The "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" has forced the US State Department and the White House to issue strongly worded statements, one after the other. Most alarming of all, White House National Security Council senior official Dennis Wilder went so far as to say that "The Republic of China is not a country."
This is unheard of, and immediately provoked a flurry of different interpretations on Taiwan. Deep Green Taiwan independence leaders were reportedly overjoyed. They gloated that "The Republic of China is not a country after all" and said this will undoubtedly lend greater legitimacy to Taiwan independence. Their interpretation is absurd beyond belief. Because what Dennis Wilder said was "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not a state in the international Community." The US also reiterated that it "does not support Taiwan independence." Dennis Wilder's statement really didn't allow any room for Taiwan independence.
The truth is just the opposite. Dennis Wilder's statement, along with Negroponte's earlier statement, revealed that the US is shrinking the amount of room for "Taiwan independence." Negroponte's statement showed that Washington and Beijing are on the same page regarding the "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan." The US sees Chen's plebiscite as "a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo." This means the US agrees with mainland China's "line in the sand," and stands with the mainland on this issue. As for Dennis Wilder's statement "The Republic of China is not a state in the international Community," that also closely conforms to Beijing's viewpoint. The differences are negligible. Dennis Wilder also stated that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided... for many, many years." In other words the "Plebiscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" has forced Washington and Beijing to arrive at an unprecedented bilateral consensus.
The US view conforms to the internal logic of its foreign policy. Dennis Wilder said "Membership in the United Nations requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community." If the US did not take such a stand, then the US would have no reason to deny the Republic of China the right to "join the UN" or "rejoin the UN." The US knows perfectly well that it cannot support the Republic of China's return to the United Nations. Therefore the US decided it might as well state openly that neither "Taiwan" nor the "Republic of China" are currently countries. But if it weren't for Chen's "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" controversy, would the US have publicly declared that "The Republic of China is not a country?" No. Not if Chen Shui-bian had not forced the US's hand.
Dennis Wilder said that the Republic of China is "an issue undecided," also provoking all sorts of interpretations. Based on Dennis Wilder's context, he meant that "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community." He added that the US view is that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided." Note that Dennis Wilder said that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided." He did not say that "Taiwan is an issue undecided." Therefore Dennis Wilder's interpretation has no relationship whatsoever with the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" of the 40s and 50s. The US maintains a One China Policy. It already recognizes that "Taiwan is a part of China." Taiwan's status has already been decided. The US standpoint is only that "The ROC, Republic of China is an issue undecided." The US does not support "Taiwan independence" and "opposes changing the status quo." Dennis Wilder's statement that the "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issued undecided" fits entirely within their "One China" framework. If the Taiwan independence movement insists on spinning Dennis Wilder's remark as a reference to the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory," then it is engaging in deliberate mispresentation.
No matter what, for the US to say that "The Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community" is enormously harmful to Taiwan. Yet Taiwan independence leaders failed to protest the US's remarks. That's because Taiwan independence denies that the "Republic of China" is a country. It wants to "rectify names and author a new constitution." It wants to overthrow the Republic of China. As matters currently stand, the People's Republic of China denies that the Republic of China is a country. The US denies that the Republic of China is a country. What the US refers to as the international community, also denies that the Republic of China is a country. Most important of all, the Taiwan independence movement also denies that the Republic of China is a country. Chen Shui-bian asks: Just what the hell is the Republic of China, anyway? Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng says: The Republic of China no longer exists! Taiwan independence leaders, paradoxically, are Chinese Communist Party fellow travellers. And today they have also become Uncle Sammy's fellow travellers.
Therefore, confronted by Dennis Wilder's "The Republic of China is not a State Thesis" it's no wonder the Taiwan independence movement doesn't know whether to be sad or glad, doesn't know whether it has been blessed or cursed. They're glad the US said "The Republic of China is not a state," because that is consistent with the Taiwan independence movement's position. Their dream has come true. On the other hand they're sad because if the Republic of China is not a state, then the Taiwan independence movement can no longer use the Republic of China as a "back door listing" for their would be "Nation of Taiwan."
When you think of it, it's truly ironic. The Taiwan independence movement has seized control of the Republic of China government. On the one hand it has used the Republic of China as a "back door listing." On the other hand it is using the "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution" as a platform for Taiwan independence. Now however, it has forced the US to oppose moves toward Taiwan independence by means of plebiscites demanding UN membership, and declarations that "the Republic of China is not a country." Now even the Republic of China, the very same "back door listing" used by the Taiwan independence movement, and the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" have been demolished.
Chen Shui-bian, you can now light firecrackers and open champagne. You have finally succeeded. The Republic of China is no longer a country.
台獨大喜？ 中華民國不是國家！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.02 02:15 am
「入聯公投」逼得美國國務院及白宮相繼發表強烈聲明。最怵目驚心的是，白宮國安會資深官員韋德寧居然說「中華民國不是一個國家」。
此說聞所未聞，在台灣立即出現各種解讀。例如，有深綠台獨人士聞之大樂，喜謂「中華民國果然不是一個國家」，並稱無疑已使台獨論述更具正當性云云。此種解讀，離譜太甚。因為，韋德寧說的是「台灣與中華民國皆不是國家」，何況美國亦一再重申「不支持台獨」。韋德寧的談話，並未給台獨任何空間。
實情可能正好相反。韋德寧的談話與稍早奈葛彭的談話皆在顯示，美國正在緊縮「台獨」的空間。奈葛彭的談話顯示，美國與中國對「公投入聯」的認知，幾已趨於一致。美國認為，「公投入聯是走向宣布台獨及改變台海現狀的一步」，儼然已與中國共守同一「紅線」。至於韋德寧說「中華民國此刻在國際社會中不是國家」，亦是大致符合中國的觀點；其間微妙的差異，只在韋德寧附加了「此刻」的時間副詞而已。換句話說，「入聯公投」已將美中兩國的政策認知與操作紅線，逼到空前未見的一處去了！
美國的說法，是符合其政策邏輯的。韋德寧說：「加入聯合國需要以國家為會員身分，台灣或中華民國此刻在國際社會中皆不是國家。」倘若美國不如此表態，則美國此時就沒有理由否定中華民國有「入聯」或「返聯」的權利，但美國又明知不可能支持中華民國返聯。因此，乾脆挑明台灣與中華民國此刻皆不是國家。問題是，倘若沒有「入聯公投」的爭議，美國也就不必撕破臉，說出「中華民國不是國家」這最後一句醜話。若非陳水扁相逼，美國不至如此。
韋德寧說，中華民國是一「未決定的議題」，亦引發各種解讀。從韋德寧談話的上下文看，他是在說到「台灣與中華民國此刻在國際社會中皆不是國家」之後，接著補充表示，美國的立場認為，「中華民國是一未決議題」。在此，韋德寧只說，「中華民國是一未決議題」，但未說「台灣是一未決議題」。因此可知，韋德寧的說法與四○或五○年代的「台灣地位未定論」，不可同日而語；因為，美國維持「一中政策」，既表示「認知」到「台灣是中國的一部分」，則「台灣」的「地位」已定，「未定」者卻是「中華民國」；而美國又不支持「台獨」，且稱「反對改變現狀」；則韋德寧所稱「中華民國是未定議題」，其實仍在「一個中國」的框架之中。台獨若將韋德寧的論述解讀為「台灣地位未定論」，即不啻指鹿為馬。
然而，無論如何，美國在此時說出「中華民國不是國家」，畢竟對台灣是極大傷害。對此，台獨其實沒有向美國抗議的立場。因為，台獨否定「中華民國」是一國家，必欲正名制憲，以推翻中華民國為目標。如今的情勢是：中華人民共和國否定中華民國是國家，美國否定中華民國是國家，（美國所稱的）國際社會亦否定中華民國為國家；最關鍵者則是台獨也否定中華民國是國家。陳水扁說，中華民國是什麼碗糕？杜正勝說，中華民國已經不存在了！台獨是中共的同路人，如今亦是美國的同路人。
因此，面對韋德寧的「中華民國不是國家論」，難怪台獨不知是悲是喜，亦不知是福是禍。喜的是，「中華民國不是國家」正是台獨的一貫主張，如今不啻美夢成真；悲的是，倘中華民國不是國家，則台獨連「借殼上市」都無可憑藉，遑論另立台灣國？
說來真是充滿弔詭：台獨在中華民國取得執政地位後，一方面藉中華民國「借殼上市」，另一方面亦藉中華民國為「正名制憲」的台獨平台。但是，如今逼得美國當局「反對走向台獨的入聯公投」，又宣示「中華民國不是國家」，卻連台獨「借殼上市」的殼，和「正名制憲」的平台也被台獨自己搗爛了。
陳水扁放鞭炮、開香檳吧！中華民國終於被你搞成不是國家了。
The Republic of China is not a Country!
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2007
The "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" has forced the US State Department and the White House to issue strongly worded statements, one after the other. Most alarming of all, White House National Security Council senior official Dennis Wilder went so far as to say that "The Republic of China is not a country."
This is unheard of, and immediately provoked a flurry of different interpretations on Taiwan. Deep Green Taiwan independence leaders were reportedly overjoyed. They gloated that "The Republic of China is not a country after all" and said this will undoubtedly lend greater legitimacy to Taiwan independence. Their interpretation is absurd beyond belief. Because what Dennis Wilder said was "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not a state in the international Community." The US also reiterated that it "does not support Taiwan independence." Dennis Wilder's statement really didn't allow any room for Taiwan independence.
The truth is just the opposite. Dennis Wilder's statement, along with Negroponte's earlier statement, revealed that the US is shrinking the amount of room for "Taiwan independence." Negroponte's statement showed that Washington and Beijing are on the same page regarding the "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan." The US sees Chen's plebiscite as "a step towards a declaration of independence of Taiwan, towards an alteration of the status quo." This means the US agrees with mainland China's "line in the sand," and stands with the mainland on this issue. As for Dennis Wilder's statement "The Republic of China is not a state in the international Community," that also closely conforms to Beijing's viewpoint. The differences are negligible. Dennis Wilder also stated that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided... for many, many years." In other words the "Plebiscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" has forced Washington and Beijing to arrive at an unprecedented bilateral consensus.
The US view conforms to the internal logic of its foreign policy. Dennis Wilder said "Membership in the United Nations requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community." If the US did not take such a stand, then the US would have no reason to deny the Republic of China the right to "join the UN" or "rejoin the UN." The US knows perfectly well that it cannot support the Republic of China's return to the United Nations. Therefore the US decided it might as well state openly that neither "Taiwan" nor the "Republic of China" are currently countries. But if it weren't for Chen's "Plebscite for UN Membership under the Name of Taiwan" controversy, would the US have publicly declared that "The Republic of China is not a country?" No. Not if Chen Shui-bian had not forced the US's hand.
Dennis Wilder said that the Republic of China is "an issue undecided," also provoking all sorts of interpretations. Based on Dennis Wilder's context, he meant that "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community." He added that the US view is that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided." Note that Dennis Wilder said that "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issue undecided." He did not say that "Taiwan is an issue undecided." Therefore Dennis Wilder's interpretation has no relationship whatsoever with the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory" of the 40s and 50s. The US maintains a One China Policy. It already recognizes that "Taiwan is a part of China." Taiwan's status has already been decided. The US standpoint is only that "The ROC, Republic of China is an issue undecided." The US does not support "Taiwan independence" and "opposes changing the status quo." Dennis Wilder's statement that the "The ROC, Republic of China, is an issued undecided" fits entirely within their "One China" framework. If the Taiwan independence movement insists on spinning Dennis Wilder's remark as a reference to the "Taiwan's Undetermined Status Theory," then it is engaging in deliberate mispresentation.
No matter what, for the US to say that "The Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community" is enormously harmful to Taiwan. Yet Taiwan independence leaders failed to protest the US's remarks. That's because Taiwan independence denies that the "Republic of China" is a country. It wants to "rectify names and author a new constitution." It wants to overthrow the Republic of China. As matters currently stand, the People's Republic of China denies that the Republic of China is a country. The US denies that the Republic of China is a country. What the US refers to as the international community, also denies that the Republic of China is a country. Most important of all, the Taiwan independence movement also denies that the Republic of China is a country. Chen Shui-bian asks: Just what the hell is the Republic of China, anyway? Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng says: The Republic of China no longer exists! Taiwan independence leaders, paradoxically, are Chinese Communist Party fellow travellers. And today they have also become Uncle Sammy's fellow travellers.
Therefore, confronted by Dennis Wilder's "The Republic of China is not a State Thesis" it's no wonder the Taiwan independence movement doesn't know whether to be sad or glad, doesn't know whether it has been blessed or cursed. They're glad the US said "The Republic of China is not a state," because that is consistent with the Taiwan independence movement's position. Their dream has come true. On the other hand they're sad because if the Republic of China is not a state, then the Taiwan independence movement can no longer use the Republic of China as a "back door listing" for their would be "Nation of Taiwan."
When you think of it, it's truly ironic. The Taiwan independence movement has seized control of the Republic of China government. On the one hand it has used the Republic of China as a "back door listing." On the other hand it is using the "rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution" as a platform for Taiwan independence. Now however, it has forced the US to oppose moves toward Taiwan independence by means of plebiscites demanding UN membership, and declarations that "the Republic of China is not a country." Now even the Republic of China, the very same "back door listing" used by the Taiwan independence movement, and the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" have been demolished.
Chen Shui-bian, you can now light firecrackers and open champagne. You have finally succeeded. The Republic of China is no longer a country.
台獨大喜？ 中華民國不是國家！
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.09.02 02:15 am
「入聯公投」逼得美國國務院及白宮相繼發表強烈聲明。最怵目驚心的是，白宮國安會資深官員韋德寧居然說「中華民國不是一個國家」。
此說聞所未聞，在台灣立即出現各種解讀。例如，有深綠台獨人士聞之大樂，喜謂「中華民國果然不是一個國家」，並稱無疑已使台獨論述更具正當性云云。此種解讀，離譜太甚。因為，韋德寧說的是「台灣與中華民國皆不是國家」，何況美國亦一再重申「不支持台獨」。韋德寧的談話，並未給台獨任何空間。
實情可能正好相反。韋德寧的談話與稍早奈葛彭的談話皆在顯示，美國正在緊縮「台獨」的空間。奈葛彭的談話顯示，美國與中國對「公投入聯」的認知，幾已趨於一致。美國認為，「公投入聯是走向宣布台獨及改變台海現狀的一步」，儼然已與中國共守同一「紅線」。至於韋德寧說「中華民國此刻在國際社會中不是國家」，亦是大致符合中國的觀點；其間微妙的差異，只在韋德寧附加了「此刻」的時間副詞而已。換句話說，「入聯公投」已將美中兩國的政策認知與操作紅線，逼到空前未見的一處去了！
美國的說法，是符合其政策邏輯的。韋德寧說：「加入聯合國需要以國家為會員身分，台灣或中華民國此刻在國際社會中皆不是國家。」倘若美國不如此表態，則美國此時就沒有理由否定中華民國有「入聯」或「返聯」的權利，但美國又明知不可能支持中華民國返聯。因此，乾脆挑明台灣與中華民國此刻皆不是國家。問題是，倘若沒有「入聯公投」的爭議，美國也就不必撕破臉，說出「中華民國不是國家」這最後一句醜話。若非陳水扁相逼，美國不至如此。
韋德寧說，中華民國是一「未決定的議題」，亦引發各種解讀。從韋德寧談話的上下文看，他是在說到「台灣與中華民國此刻在國際社會中皆不是國家」之後，接著補充表示，美國的立場認為，「中華民國是一未決議題」。在此，韋德寧只說，「中華民國是一未決議題」，但未說「台灣是一未決議題」。因此可知，韋德寧的說法與四○或五○年代的「台灣地位未定論」，不可同日而語；因為，美國維持「一中政策」，既表示「認知」到「台灣是中國的一部分」，則「台灣」的「地位」已定，「未定」者卻是「中華民國」；而美國又不支持「台獨」，且稱「反對改變現狀」；則韋德寧所稱「中華民國是未定議題」，其實仍在「一個中國」的框架之中。台獨若將韋德寧的論述解讀為「台灣地位未定論」，即不啻指鹿為馬。
然而，無論如何，美國在此時說出「中華民國不是國家」，畢竟對台灣是極大傷害。對此，台獨其實沒有向美國抗議的立場。因為，台獨否定「中華民國」是一國家，必欲正名制憲，以推翻中華民國為目標。如今的情勢是：中華人民共和國否定中華民國是國家，美國否定中華民國是國家，（美國所稱的）國際社會亦否定中華民國為國家；最關鍵者則是台獨也否定中華民國是國家。陳水扁說，中華民國是什麼碗糕？杜正勝說，中華民國已經不存在了！台獨是中共的同路人，如今亦是美國的同路人。
因此，面對韋德寧的「中華民國不是國家論」，難怪台獨不知是悲是喜，亦不知是福是禍。喜的是，「中華民國不是國家」正是台獨的一貫主張，如今不啻美夢成真；悲的是，倘中華民國不是國家，則台獨連「借殼上市」都無可憑藉，遑論另立台灣國？
說來真是充滿弔詭：台獨在中華民國取得執政地位後，一方面藉中華民國「借殼上市」，另一方面亦藉中華民國為「正名制憲」的台獨平台。但是，如今逼得美國當局「反對走向台獨的入聯公投」，又宣示「中華民國不是國家」，卻連台獨「借殼上市」的殼，和「正名制憲」的平台也被台獨自己搗爛了。
陳水扁放鞭炮、開香檳吧！中華民國終於被你搞成不是國家了。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)