Monday, September 30, 2013

Dissolve the Legislature, Begin Anew

Dissolve the Legislature, Begin Anew
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
October 1, 2013


Summary: Yesterday, DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang said the DPP supports the dissolution of the Legislature and a new election. The DPP boasts that it "loves Taiwan." We urge the people to stand up and demand that the DPP walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. KMT lawmakers must wake up. They are sinking in quicksand, dying a slow death. They might as well launch a last-ditch struggle for a stable power base. Let the Legislative Yuan hold a new election. Only then will it truly reflect current public sentiment, and allow a return to constitutional rule.

Full text below:

The ruling KMT Speaker of Legislature and the opposition DPP Party Whip conspired to peddle influence with the Judiciary. As Chairman of the ruling KMT, the President attempted to revoke the Speaker of the Legislature's party membership and force him to resign from the Legislative Yuan. But the court blocked the attempt. The opposition DPP then seized the opportunity to force the President to resign. This started a chain reaction that has plunged Taiwan into its most serious constitutional crisis in history. The Executive Yuan cannot govern. The Legislative Yuan remains deadlocked. The Judicial Yuan is mired in a controversy over wire tapping and has lost the confidence of the public. People feel more confused, uncertain, and powerless than ever.

It pains us to note that Taiwan today lacks any sense of direction. It cannot find its target. It remains deadlocked. It persists in endless power struggles. It resembles a critically ill patient in ICU, totally dependent upon life support. Unless it undergoes major surgery, the prognosis is grim. No one knows how bad it will get. We solemnly urge a subjective and objective reevaluation of the current situation, and a thorough examination of future outcomes, both positive and negative. The president should invoke the "right to dissolve the Legislature" provided for in the amended constitution. He should call for a new Legislative Yuan election, enabling the public to express its will and dissolve the constitutional deadlock. This is the most effective, most powerful, most honorable, and most thorough solution. It is the best way to distinguish right from wrong, and to find our way out of the current dilemma.

The right to dissolve the legislature and the vote of no confidence (a legislative vote of no confidence regarding the premier) is a constitutional provision implemented in 1997 by the ROC 4th National Assembly. Its purpose was to avoid gridlock between the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. Prolonged gridlock can undermine national development. But the new provision also changed the constitutional framework. It changed it from a dual leadership cabinet system to a semi-presidential system. The Additional Articles to the Constitution stipulate that "The Legislative Yuan may, with the support of one third or more of its members, call for a vote of no confidence in the Premier. After the no-confidence motion is put forward... it shall... vote on the motion via secret ballot. If the motion is approved by over half of the members, the Premier shall resign within 10 days, and may petition the President to dissolve the Legislative Yuan." In other words, when the Legislative Yuan casts a vote of no confidence in the Executive Yuan, and the no-confidence vote is successful, the President must replace the Premier. He can also announce the dissolution of the Legislative Yuan.

The above mentioned constitutional provisions show that the president's right to dissolve the Legislature is a form of passive defense against a Legislature's no confidence vote. Its purpose is to maintain stability. Another purpose is to provide for new elections that reflect current public opinion in the event deadlocks are intractable and confrontations are serious. New Legislative elections enable one to clear the air and begin anew. In fact, the resignation of the cabinet and the corresponding right to dissolve the Legislature have a much lower threshold than the impeachment or recall of the president. This means it is more likely to happen and the process must be more efficient. This means of resolving constitutional impasses has existed for 16 years. Due to our political culture and other concerns, it has never been used. But Taiwan today is politically gridlocked. If President Ma and the ruling and opposition parties refuse to remain rational and pragmatic, and invoke this constitutional provision now, when it is needed, when will they invoke it?

Of course, actually dissolving the Legislature will lead to Machievellian political intrigues among the political parties, as well as among ruling and opposition party legislators. It will lead to calculations about gained or lost seats following the election. Legislators may find their terms cut short. They may face greater risks and require more campaign funding. These will all determine whether a new Legislative election is possible. The problem is, everyone knows the gridlock must be broken. Current legislators have two years left in their terms. Do they really want the nation paralzyed, the government idled, and the public panicked? Ruling and opposition party legislators all have their own interests. But can government and party leaders sit idly by, doing nothing?

Given current circumstances, most people think a new Legislative election will reduce the number of seats currently held by the KMT. If that is the case, and gridlock persists, public resentment against the ruling KMT will only increase. The ruling Kuomintang's illusory majority will only diminish. It will only find it more difficult to turn the tide. Next year's local elections could turn into a rout. The 2016 presidential election could lead to ruling party change. President Ma has long valued right and wrong. He is decent and incorruptible. He must embrace the possibility of defeat followed by eventual resurrection. He must forthrightly uphold constitutional rule. He must exercise initiative. He must explain to the people the reason for his devotion to principles. He must fight for his legacy. If he sits passively, and fails to take action, he will be relentlessly criticized and remain misunderstood until the end. If President Ma puts up a fight, he can turn the tide. The outcome of the new election is not a forgone conclusion.

Yesterday, DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang responded passively. He said the DPP supports the dissolution of the Legislature and a new election. But his party lacks the seats to call for a vote of no confidence. Su Tseng-chang may pay lip service to the dissolution of the Legislature. But he cannot avoid Machiavellian political calculations. The DPP boasts that it "loves Taiwan." We urge the people to stand up and demand that the DPP walk the walk, and not just talk the talk. KMT lawmakers must wake up. They are sinking in quicksand, dying a slow death. They might as well launch a last-ditch struggle for a stable power base. Let the Legislative Yuan hold a new election. Only then will it truly reflect current public sentiment, and allow a return to constitutional rule.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報  2013.10.01
社論-解散國會 以最新民意為台灣脫困
本報訊

     執政黨國會議長與在野黨黨鞭涉嫌聯手司法關說,總統企圖以執政黨主席身分撤銷立法院長黨籍迫其下台,但撤銷黨籍受阻於司法而未竟其功,在野黨見縫插針企圖迫使總統辭職下台,引爆的連鎖風暴已經使整個台灣陷入有史以來最嚴重的憲政僵局與信任危機,不僅行政院無法施政、立法院持續空轉,司法系統也陷入監聽爭議失去民眾信任,全民更是茫然失措,社會充滿空前的不確定性和無力感。

     我們要很沉痛地指出,如今的台灣,如果再這麼看不到方向、找不到目標,繼續僵持、纏鬥下去,就好像一個送進加護病房的重症病人,只靠著葉克膜維持生命的表象;除非痛下決心進行一次徹底的大手術,否則真的會凶多吉少,不知伊於胡底。我們要嚴肅呼籲,盱衡當前主客觀形勢、審思未來利弊發展,總統應援引憲法增修條文的「解散國會權」機制,重新改選立法院,訴諸最新民意仲裁爭議,化解憲政僵局,這將是最有效、最有力,也是最光明正大、最正本清源、更是最能展現大是大非的解套途徑!

     「解散國會權」與「倒閣權」(立法院對行政院長提出不信任案)是我國在1997年國民大會第4次修憲時所新增的憲政機制;這是為了避免當國家尤其是行政、立法兩院陷入重大僵局時,因為長時間的僵持難解,重創國家發展,因此有了此一新的解套機制,也使我國憲政體制從雙首長偏內閣制,進入新的半總統制。根據憲法增修條文規定:「立法院得經全體立法委員三分之一以上連署,對行政院院長提出不信任案。不信任案提出…後,應…以記名投票表決之。如經全體立法委員二分之一以上贊成,行政院院長應於10日內提出辭職,並得同時呈請總統解散立法院。」也就是在國會對行政院提出不信任案倒閣時,當不信任案成立(倒閣成功)時,總統必須撤換閣揆,也可以宣布解散立法院。

     從上述憲法條文規定來看,總統的解散國會權是一種防禦國會發動倒閣的被動權,目的一方面是為了維持施政的穩定性,另一方面也是為了真正遇到難解僵局、嚴重對立時,保有訴諸最新民意,重新改選國會進而開創新局的彈性。事實上,倒閣權與相應而來的解散國會權,其通過門檻比彈劾或罷免總統都來得低,意謂其設計實現的可能性應該更必要且更有效;而此一化解僵局的憲政制度通過至今已16年,基於我國政治文化與種種顧慮,至今從未使用過。但我們必須指出,以今天台灣政局之僵持糜爛,此時馬總統與朝野兩黨若還不能以開闊心胸,理性務實地援引此一憲政制度,請問何時還需用、能用此制度?

     當然,我們不能迴避的是,一旦真要解散國會時,就會引發政黨以及朝野立委的權謀算計,畢竟這將會導致政黨重新估算改選後的席次比例是否更有利,也會中途截斷立委們的任期,使他們必須面臨更多的競選花費與當選風險,而這些都會影響到能否實現重新改選國會的可能性。問題是,全民都看得出來,如果再放任這種僵局下去,現有立委剩下的2年任期,難道真要淪落到國家癱瘓、政府空轉、全民惶惶的慘境?朝野立委也許各有本位私利,但國家元首、政黨領袖也可以坐視不管嗎?

     以目前的形勢與氛圍來看,若真的改選國會,一般似乎認為國民黨可能會比現在的席次更少。然而若真是如此,以現在的僵局繼續下去,民眾對執政黨的反感只會更增加,國民黨所謂多數執政的假象也只會持續惡化,更加難以脫困,甚至在明年的地方大選就會提前崩盤,乃至2016總統大選藍綠變色。因此,對一向強調大是大非、正派清廉的馬總統,更應該有懷抱置之死地而後生的覺悟,援引光明正大的憲政解紛機制,以主動的精神、積極的態度向全民訴說他的堅持與理念,爭取他真正的歷史定位。事實上,與其坐以待斃、無所作為乃至飽受誤解批判而終,馬總統的奮力一搏,當可重振生機,重新改選之勝負輸贏,尚在未定之天。

     民進黨主席蘇貞昌昨天被動回應,民進黨支持解散國會、重新改選。但該黨目前席次尚不足發動倒閣,蘇貞昌支持解散立法院的口頭表述,難脫權謀算計的考量。站在愛台灣的立場,我們呼籲全民站出來,監督民進黨倒閣案要玩真的,也要喚醒國民黨立法委員,與其陷在政治泥濘中慢性死亡,不如奮力一搏換取穩定的執政基礎。讓立法院重新改選,才能真正訴諸最新民意,回歸憲政正軌。

APEC: Wang Zhang Meeting a Stepping Stone for a Ma Xi Meeting

APEC: Wang Zhang Meeting a Stepping Stone for a Ma Xi Meeting
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 30, 2013


Summary: On June 8, this newspaper published an editorial, "fully backing a Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference." The question now is no longer whether to back a Ma Xi meeting. If the authorities on the two sides fail to live up to this historic opportunity, who should be blamed then?

Full text below:

The annual APEC conference will convene in Bali, Indonesia tomorrow. MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi will attend the meeting as a "consultant" for the delegation from Taipei. He will meet with Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun. For Taipei and Beijing, this meeting will be the highlight of the conference.

In fact, as long as Wang and Zhang meet under the same roof, it matters little whether their meeting is one on one or how they address each other. In essence, the two are "MAC Chairman Wang Yu-chi " and "Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun." Therefore if the two fail to greet each other during the conference, or if they address each other as "Mr. Wang" or "Consultant Wang," or "Mr. Zhang," it will merely leave behind a frustrating impression of evasiveness. This evasiveness, which is so far removed from reality, is the primary obstacle to improved cross-Strait relations now that the two sides are entering more treacherous waters.

Put bluntly, the two sides are entering more treacherous waters. This is not something that politicians from the two sides can settle through negotiations. The key is how the public on Taiwan regards the term "China," and just who is "Chinese." Therefore, as this newspaper has often reiterated, the public on Taiwan must first agree that "Within the framework of one China, the Republic of China is part of China." Otherwise the majority of the public on Taiwan cannot be persudaded to identify themselves as "Chinese." If this is the case, how can one speak of "reunification?"

We enthusiastically agree with the CCP 18th Party Congress, which declared its intention to "Explore cross-Strait political relations under special circumstances in which the country has yet to be reunified, and to make reasonable arrangements." This proposition acknowledges the current state of cross-Strait relations. It is a "yet to be reunified" relationship. It acknowledges that "cross-Strait political relations are yet to be reunified relations." In other words, the "Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of China are in a special relationship, one in which they coexist side by side." The 18th Party Congress acknowledges that the relationship is "a special relationship that is a yet to reunified relationship." Otherwise it would not use expressions such as "Although the two sides have yet to be be reunified, they are both parts of one China," or "one China is an in progress one China."

The "Constitution of the Republic of China" provides the sole assurance of cross-strait "peaceful development." Yet it the Constitution of the Republic of China is referred to as "existing cross-Strait provisions." Is this not evasive? The MAC and the Taiwan Affairs Office are charged with cross-Strait affairs. Yet their representatives cannot even be addressed as Chairman Wang and Chairman Zhang." Is this not equally evasive? Politics on Taiwan is chaotic. National identity on Taiwan is confused. In the final analysis, the main reason for this is Beijing's intolerance. It refuses to allow the Republic of China to be part of China under the "Big Roof Concept of China." This makes the public on Taiwan leery of the "one China" framework. , It deprives them of a sense of security, dignity, and identity.

Since 2008, the two sides have corrected many of the mistakes they made before 2008. Take one example. The ban on the display of the ROC flag in international stadiums has apparently been lifted. Beijing now realizes that not allowing the public on Taiwan to wave the ROC flag has negative consequences. It makes the public on Taiwan feel even less connection with "China." It makes them feel even less identification with "China" and "the Chinese people." As a result of this major revelation, Beijing adopted a more open approach for the WHA and the ICAO. The cross-Strait diplomatic truce has been in effect for over five years. This positive trend in cross-Strait relations has won the recognition and approval of the public on Taiwan.

Even international aspects of cross-Strait relations can be improved. Non-international aspects of cross-Strait relations should be even more amenable to innovative breakthroughs. Over the past five years many significant breakthroughs have been made. The ROC now enjoys more international breathing space. Cross-Strait breathing space will naturally increase as well. Now we must wait and see how Zhang Zhijun and Wang Yu-chi conduct themselves in Bali.

Macau Chief Executive Fernando Cui Sai-on met with Wang Yu-chi in August. They addressed each other as "Chairman Wang" and "Chief Executive Cui." Fools see countless mountains in their hearts. Sages see the sheet of paper before their eyes. If Zhang Zhijun could not address Wang as "Chairman Wang," then Chui Sai On would have no reason to reciprocate. Conversely, if Cui Sai On could address Wang as "Chairman Wang," Zhang Zhijun would have no reason not to reciprocate. Zhang Zhijun carries more cross-Strait policy weight than Cui Shi On. Let us listen closely and see if Cui shakes things up by addressing Wang as "Chairman Wang."

A single utterance of "Chairman Wang" could shred a piece of paper. But a single utterance of "Chairman Wang" could clear away a thousand mountains. Changing the way people are addressed might change attitudes and policies. Besides, current cross-Strait relations have already cleared away a thousand mountains. Now all that remains is to shred the paper that dicates the manner of address. The Xi Jinping team may appear to have immense obstacles to overcome. In fact, it probably only needs to decide what title to use.

Hu Jingtao's cross-Strait achievements began with the 2005 Lian Hu Meeting. Xi Jingping's cross-Strait assignment begins next year, when Beijing hosts the APEC conference, and Ma and Xi may meet. When Ma and Xi meet, how will they address each other? Within the APEC Council, Ma and Xi are both "economic leaders." Outside the conference, they can refer to the 1995 "Jiang Eight-Point Proposal." Xi can address Ma as "leader of the Taiwan authorities." Ma can address Xi as "leader of the Mainland authorities." Surely the Beijing authorities commitment eight years ago, will still be honored nine years later?

Finally, on June 8, this newspaper published an editorial, "fully backing a Ma Xi meeting at next year's APEC conference." The question now is no longer whether to back a Ma Xi meeting. If the authorities on the two sides fail to live up to this historic opportunity, who should be blamed then?

APEC:以王張會為馬習會敲門磚
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.30 04:43 am

APEC年會明天在印尼峇里島舉行,陸委會主委王郁琦將以「顧問」名義隨團赴會,他與台辦主任張志軍的互動,將成為此會在兩岸之間的最大亮點。

其實,只要王張二人在同一天花板下的同一場所見面,不論是多對多還是一對一,也不論是怎麼稱呼,在實質上皆是「陸委會主委王郁琦」與「台辦主任張志軍」見了面。正因如此,倘若二人在此會仍以互不招呼,或以互稱「王先生」、「王顧問」、「張先生」收場,那其實只能顯示一種令人扼腕的虛矯,而這種背離事實的虛矯正是兩岸關係進入深水區的主要障礙。

直白而言,兩岸深水區的難題,絕無可能逕由兩岸政治人物經談判解決,其真正關鍵,是在台灣人民如何決定其對「中國」及「中國人」的認同。因此,本報屢申,如果不能使台灣人民先認同「在一個中國的架構下,中華民國是一部分的中國」,即絕無可能使多數台灣人民認同自己是「中國人」。倘係如此,更如何奢言「統一」?

我們十分贊同中共十八大所宣示:「探討國家尚未統一特殊情況下的兩岸政治關係,作出合情合理的安排。」此一命題確立了當前的兩岸關係是「尚未統一」的關係,亦等同承認了「兩岸尚未統一的政治關係」即是「中華民國與中華人民共和國共存並立的特殊關係」。若不承認此種「尚未統一的特殊關係」,如何奢言「雖然尚未統一,仍是一個中國」,或「一個中國是現在進行式」?

若明知「中華民國憲法」是維繫兩岸「和平發展」的唯一憑藉,卻將「中華民國憲法」稱為「兩岸各自現行規定」,這豈非虛矯?又明知兩岸各自是以陸委會及台辦主持兩岸事務,卻不能相互稱呼為「王主委」、「張主任」,這豈不亦是虛矯?台灣在政治和認同上的亂局,說到底,主要是因北京不容「在大屋頂中國架構下,接受中華民國是一部分的中國」,致使台灣人民在「一個中國」的框架下,缺乏安全感、尊嚴感與認同感所致。

其實,兩岸在二○○八年以前各自所犯的錯誤,二○○八年後已見大幅導正。僅舉一例:國際運動場看台上的青天白日滿地紅旗似已「解禁」,因為北京知道,不容台灣人民擎持「中華民國國旗」的後果,只會使台灣人民與「中國」更無「連結點」,更不認同「中國」與「中國人」。在這樣的大覺大悟下,WHA與ICAO皆有了較為開放的作法,兩岸外交休兵至今亦有五年餘,此種兩岸在國際關係方面的正向走勢,已明顯受到台灣人民的肯定與贊同。

如果在國際方面可以朝往開明、開放的方向發展,則在兩岸之間尤應有創新突破的作法(五年來已有極多與極大的成果)。國際上能放大空間,兩岸的空間必當更大。現在且看張志軍與王郁琦在峇里島如何表現。

澳門特首崔世安八月會見王郁琦,以「王主委」及「崔特首」互稱。愚者心中的萬重山,智者眼下的一張紙。若張志軍不能稱「王主委」,崔世安也沒有道理能;反之,若崔世安能稱「王主委」,張志軍亦沒有道理不能。然而,畢竟張志軍在兩岸政策上的分量仍是重於崔世安,讓我們洗耳以待會不會自他口中吐出那句旋轉乾坤的「王主委」。

一聲「王主委」也許只是撕開一張紙;但一聲「王主委」也能搬開萬重山。稱謂轉換,是寄望能夠帶動心態的正向轉換與政策的正向轉換;何況,兩岸關係的現狀,可謂已經破除了萬重山,反而似乎只剩下如何撕去「稱謂」這一張紙了。因此,習近平團隊的兩岸功業看似深水難渡,其實可能只決定在一句稱謂之間而已。

胡錦濤的兩岸業績,啟動於二○○五年的連胡會;習近平的兩岸勳業則應當啟動於明年在大陸舉行的APEC馬習會。至於,馬習見面,如何稱呼?在APEC會內,馬習皆是「經濟體領袖」;在會場外,則可依一九九五年「江八點」所指,習稱馬「台灣當局領導人」,馬稱習「大陸當局領導人」。難道,北京當局八年前的承諾,九年後竟不能兌現?

最後,重申本報六月八日社論〈全力促成明年APEC馬習會〉所言:現在,問題不在「該不該促成這場馬習會」,而當想像,兩岸當局如果辜負了這個歷史機遇,將該當何罪?

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Ker Chien-ming "Interrogates" the Prosecutor General in the Legislative Yuan

Ker Chien-ming "Interrogates" the Prosecutor General in the Legislative Yuan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 27, 2013


Summary: Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming was pilloried by over 20 opposition party legislators in the legislature. The ordeal has been described as a Cultural Revolution style "struggle session." DPP Party Whip Ker Chien-ming began his "interrogation" by referring to the wire tap transcripts. He then told Huang Shi-ming "You're a dead man." Huang Shi-ming was humiliated in the Legislative Yuan. That merely hurt his feelings. But Ker Chien-ming and other legislators' conduct, is a matter of right and wrong, one which undermines criminal justice on Taiwan.

Full text below:

Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming was pilloried by over 20 opposition party legislators in the legislature. The ordeal has been described as a Cultural Revolution style "struggle session." DPP Party Whip Ker Chien-ming began his "interrogation" by referring to the wire tap transcripts. He then told Huang Shi-ming "You're a dead man." A legislator assumed the role of inquisitor of a judicial branch official. This trampled over the dignity of the judiciary. It also exposed the coarse and barbaric character of the Legislative Yuan.

The average person might assume that a lawmakers interrogating an official is perfectly normal. Therefore they reason that a legislator such as Ker Chien-ming interrogating Huang Shi-ming is perfectly natural. It is not. In this context, Ker Chien-ming is not a legislator. Ker Chien-ming is a key suspect in a criminal investigation being conducted by Huang Shi-ming and the Special Investigation Unit. His relationship with Huang Shi-ming is the relationship between the criminal who is under investigation and the case investigator. The venue was changed to the Legislative Yuan, and the status of the two men was suddenly reversed. The lawmaker became the investigator in his own criminal investigation. The inevitable result was an inversion of right and wrong and a travesty of justice.

Other legislators may question Huang Shi-ming. But Ker Chien-ming was a suspect in the case under investigation. He must recuse himself. Only this is consistent with his role in the investigation. He may not assume the role of "legislator" in this investigation. He may not take advantage of his position to intimidate those investigating him. On the very first day of the session, Ker Chien-ming mounted the podium to conduct his "interrogation." Altogether he mounted the podium four times to attack Huang. He even told Huang Shi-ming "You are a dead man." His behavior was a vivid illustration of his "I am a legislator. I am the real capo di tutti capi" mindset. He revealed his total lack of remorse for his influence peddling with the judiciary.

A legislator was able to "struggle session" techniques against those prosecuting him. He was able to brush aside his own criminal wrongdoing. What hope remains for criminal justice on Taiwan? If officials of the judiciary permit themselves to be cowed by flagrant intimidation and treated with contempt, how much dignity does the judiciary retain?

Ker Chien-ming's "performance" was not the only questionable element. The entire legislative process was biased in favor of Ker Chien-ming. It provided him with a bully pulpit. When Huang Shi-ming showed up at the Legislative Yuan, it was not because he was invited to make a special report. It was not because the Legislative Yuan decided to open a special investigation on influence peddling. It was because DPP legislators cited "unnecessary duplication" between the Special Investigation Unit and Internal Affairs Bureau. It proposed amending Article 63-1 of the "Court Organization Law," and abolishing the Special Investigation Unit. It demanded that Huang respond to questioning. This Judicial and Legal Affairs Committee question and answer session went on for eight hours. But the focus was almost entirely on the influence peddling case. Ker Chien-ming brazenly "interrogated" the Prosecutor General investigating his case. An endless swarm of Blue and Green camp legislators emerged from the woodwork, and rushed to his aid. With calls for Huang's blood, the Legislative Yuan turned itself into a "Surround Huang Save Ker" battlefield.

This spectacle of the legislature bullying the judiciary, gave people the creeps. In 2006, the Legislative Yuan amended the "Court Organization Law," and officially established the Special Investigation Unit. It stipulated that the Prosecutor General would be "nominated by the president, approved by the Legislative Yuan, and serve a four year term." the sponsor of the bill was Green Camp Legislator Tsai Chi -fang. Has the DPP forgotten that? In January 13 of that year, a Third Reading of the Bill passed. The legislature ringingly proclaimed that the Special Investigation Unit would prosecute even high officials such as "Ministers, the Speaker of the Legislature, and the President" for high crimes such as corruption. The media praised the move as an "historic step in judicial reform." Has everyone forgotten this? The Special Investigation Unit could prosecute even President Chen for corruption. Today it has merely tweaked a few of Ker Chien-ming and Wang Jin-pyng's whiskers. Yet the DPP is suddenly determined to scrap the Special Investigation Unit? Are Wang and Ker really more sacrosanct than the president? Or is the DPP helping the Chen family get payback against the Special Investigation Unit?

The Legislative Yuan brazenly provided Ker Chien-ming a stage on which to "interrogate" Huang Shi-ming. It brazenly enaged in political interference in the judiciary. The current legislature is clearly indifferent to right and wrong. It does not even bother to hide its public settling of private scores. How many bills affecting the public welfare have been shelved for no reason? Yet an "Abolish the Special Investigation Unit" bill specifically intended to help Ker Chien-ming and Wang Jin-pyng escape prosecution has been placed on the agenda and given top priority. The legislature's "aid corruption" tactics leaves people dumbfounded.

Over the last twenty days, amidst the tumult over the influence peddling scandal, the judiciary has remained silent. Does it really have nothing to say? Or do such political abuses warrant nothing more than turning the other cheek? Is the case nothing more than a political struggle? If it were, then the judiciary would be wise to avoid entanglement. But this case involves judicial independence and due process. People are hearing political rhetoric from only one side. They have no professional legal opinions to help them determine what is just. Under the circumstances, how can the public distinguish right from wrong? Huang Shi-ming was abused in the legislature. Some prosecutors have criticized Huang Shi-ming for not protesting to the chairman, and challenging the appropriateness of Ker Chien-ming's interrogation. They say he failed to demonstrate "grit." Their objection is correct. But they must not blame the victim. If Huang Shi-ming had protested, he probably would have had shoes thrown at him, in addition to being forced to resign.

Huang Shi-ming was humiliated in the Legislative Yuan. That merely hurt his feelings. But Ker Chien-ming and other legislators' conduct, is a matter of right and wrong, one which undermines criminal justice on Taiwan.

看柯建銘在立院「審問」檢察總長
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.27 04:48 am

檢察總長黃世銘在立法院遭到廿多名朝野立委輪番砲轟,被形容為一場「公審」。民進黨總召柯建銘在詢問關說案監聽譯文的內容時,還向黃世銘說出「你死了!」的話。這場「立委拷問司法」的大戲,不僅嚴重踐踏了司法的尊嚴,也讓立法院的粗暴鄙陋暴露無遺。

一般人或許以為,立委在立法院質詢官員,本是天經地義;也因此,柯建銘以立委身分在委員會質問黃世銘,自是理所當然。但其實不然,在此時此地,柯建銘無此資格。原因是,柯建銘是黃世銘及特偵組偵辦關說案之主要當事人,他和黃世銘是「被偵查者」與「偵查者」的關係;如果主場換到立法院,兩人的地位隨即因此對調,立法委員反過來就自己所涉案件質問司法人員,勢必形成「反偵訊」的倒錯態勢,對司法造成侵害。

亦即,其他立委可以質詢黃世銘,但柯建銘應該以「利害關係人」的身分,主動請求迴避質詢,這才符合角色分際,避免以「立委」身分對特定司法辦案人員構成不對等的威嚇或侵犯。然而,當天柯建銘不僅搶先登台質詢,並先後四度上台搶攻,甚至對黃世銘說出「你死了」這樣的威嚇言語。其作法,將「立委才是老大」的霸道心態表現得淋漓盡致,對自己所涉的司法關說則沒有絲毫悔意。

試想,立委如果可以用這種公審司法人員的方式,來抹掉自己的汙點或罪行,台灣的司法還有什麼陽光和希望可言?如果司法人員接受這樣的公然威嚇和侮蔑,司法還要向誰訴說尊嚴?

事實上,可議的不只是柯建銘,整個立法院的運作也充滿「為柯建銘作球」的偏頗心態。黃世銘之所以前往立院,並不是立法院邀請他去作專案報告,也不是立法院決議就關說案成立特別調查專案,而是民進黨立委以特偵組和廉政署「疊床架屋」為由,提案修改「法院組織法」六十三條之一,要求廢除特偵組,指名要他備詢。然而,在司法及法制委員會這場長達八小時的輪番質詢中,主要焦點幾乎全集中在關說案,不僅柯建銘赤膊上陣親自「審問」偵辦其案件的檢察總長,更不斷有各路藍綠立委為他跨刀助陣,殺聲震天,立院簡直把自己當成「圍黃救柯」的戰場。

這「政治霸凌司法」的一幕,教人看得毛骨悚然。二○○六年,立法院修改「法院組織法」將特偵組法制化,並規定檢察總長由「總統提名、立法院同意、任期四年」,當時領銜的提案人就是綠營立委蔡啟芳,民進黨難道忘了嗎?當年一月十三日法案三讀通過時,立法院還宣稱特偵組將專辦「部長、院長、總統」等高官的重大貪瀆違紀案件,媒體還誇讚此舉「為我司法改革跨出歷史性的一步」,大家都忘記了嗎?那麼,為何特偵組連陳水扁總統的貪瀆案都能辦了,如今,只不過拔了王金平和柯建銘幾根虎鬚,民進黨即急著要廢特偵組;難道王、柯比總統更神聖不可侵犯?或者是民進黨在幫扁家向特偵組報一箭之仇?

立法院公然上演柯建銘質問黃世銘的戲碼,毫不避諱的政治干預司法,說明當前國會不僅是非不分,更到了假公濟私而不暇遮掩的地步。試想,多少攸關國計民生的重要法案無故遭到擱置,而今天一個「廢特偵組」的法案,就為了幫柯建銘和王金平的關說案護航,立刻優先重裝上場;立院的厚黑戰術,令人三嘆!

同樣讓人好奇的,是在近廿天的關說案紛擾中始終保持靜默的司法界,是真的無話可說,或者對這樣的政治凌辱只能唾面自乾?如果此案只是純粹的政治鬥爭,司法人員避免捲入,自是明智之舉;但此案涉及諸多司法獨立性和程序公正性之爭,民眾聽到的都是片面的政治語言,而缺少專業的司法見解作為辨正,在這種情況下,社會的是非價值要如何建立?看到黃世銘在立法院遭到不當對待,還有檢察官指責黃世銘未向主席提出程序抗議,請求裁示柯建銘是否適宜質詢,有失鐵漢風骨。這個提法是對的,但責備對象卻是錯的;如果黃世銘當時這麼做了,他恐怕得準備迎接襲來的鞋子,還下得了台嗎?

黃世銘在立法院有多窘,只是他個人的感受問題;但被柯建銘和眾多立委作踐的,卻是台灣的司法和社會的是非。

Normalization of the Legislature: The Real Issue

Normalization of the Legislature: The Real Issue
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 26, 2013


Summary: Most media polls are unfavorable to President Ma. Many in the KMT are defecting. Some are attempting to effect a reconciliation between Ma and Wang. But we hope President Ma will uphold justice and refuse to retreat. We call on the people to offer their support and to transcend partisanship. Use this rare opportunity to address the problem, to bring order out of chaos, and to restore the legislature to its normal functions.

Full text below:

Ma and Wang continue to wrangle endlessly. The DPP continues to revel in Schadenfreude. The KMT remains plagued by internal power struggles. Politics remains deadlocked. Ma Ying-jeou says the Speaker of the Legislature may not peddle influence with the Judiciary, and must distinguish right from wrong. The Ma vs. Wang struggle cannot continue. We must now await a legal verdict. Influence peddling with the Judiciary is a red line that must not be crossed. It is surely a matter of right vs. wrong. But what matters most is whether the political turmoil will increase everyone's vigilance. The gridlock in the Legislature cannot continue. The normal functioning of a democratic legislature must be restored. Otherwise the nation's competitiveness will continue to decline, and the people will continue to suffer.

The lesions are conspicuous and appear with increasing frequency. The need for solutions is urgent. Superficially the legislature appears full of life. It is constantly in the news. But essentially it is riddled with disease. It could suffer a paralyzing stroke at any time. The Legislative Yuan is paralyzed, and riddled with structural problems. The judicial influence peddling scandal is serious. It urgently requires rehabilitation. The Legislative Yuan has not been a forum for democratic pluralism for some time. It is actually more like the Colosseum, a forum for ruling vs opposition party gladiatoral combat. In public, legislators repeatedly occupy the podium, and engage in shouting matches and physical scuffles. In private, the ruling and opposition parties make all sorts of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" deals behind closed doors. As these under the table deals persist, the public becomes inured. This abnormal behavior in the legislature begins to seem normal.

The scope of the Ma vs. Wang political struggle has expanded, and its intensity has increased. Otherwise, it would never have touched off so much soul-searching. This "shock to the system" is likely to affect the economy and peoples livelihood. People are likely to wake up. They are likely to demand normal ruling vs. opposition party relations and a fully functioning Legislative Yuan. People need political leaders who will see the big picture and offer real solutions. They need more effective lawmakers who will consider the national interest. For precisely this reason, the Ma vs. Wang political struggle must not remain frozen at the level of a political struggle. More thought and action are required. We call for the transformation of negatives into positives. The old habits of the Legislative Yuan must be changed. Democratic institutions must be rebuilt, and return to normal functioning. This will be to the benefit of the nation. It answers to the public. It staunchly upholds the distinction between right and wrong.

When the legislature reconvenes, Wang Jin-pyng will return and preside over it. Some may think this gives the royalists a "home court advantage." But look closely. That is not necessarily true. Wang Jin-pyng may receive public sympathy in the short run. But that does not mean the public agrees that Wang should preside over the legislature. Ruling vs. opposition party battles and legislative gridlock are likely to immediately reappear, just as before. They are sure to rekindle public resentment against the Legislative Yuan and lead to further reflection. They could provide a stimulus. They may clarify the dispute between Ma and Wang. They may lead to legislative and institutional reforms that excise the tumors. Speaker of the Legislature Wang says he seeks harmony, is loyal to his party, and loves his country. He in particular should give serious thought to public expectations that he restore the legislature to its normal functions.

This newspaper has previously noted that "Wang Jin-pyng can hardly disown responsibilty for the chaos in the legislature." We now reiterate, the hallmark of democracy is that the minority must defer to the majority, and the majority must respect the minority. Currently however, the legislature has been turned upside down. It acts totally contrary to democratic norms. Lawmakers are regularly re-elected. Each legislator represents public opinion. But the current legislature's party consultation mechanism defines 3 seats in the Legislature as a caucus, and the KMT with 64 seats as a caucus. No distinction is made between the two. The democratic principle of majority rule is gone. The majority of the public behind the majority party goes unrepresented. Naturally majority voters feel frustrated. Worse still, according to the "Organic Law of the Legislative Yuan." consultations must be videotaped in toto and be made part of the official record. But this requirement has become a mere formality. It has never been implemented. This has thrown the doors wide open to ruling and opposition party backroom deals. Bills are passed in smoke-filled backrooms. They are neither made public nor subject to oversight. Scandals follow, one after the other. This has serious side-effects. This totally undermines the committees' normal legislative procedure, responsibility, and professional review. The quality of legislation has declined precipitously.

The Legislative Yuan has a Disciplinary Committee. It has clearly defined punishments for disciplinary violations. But everyone from the Speaker of the Legislature on down, operates on the basis of "one hand washes the other" Mafia ethics. It has not functioned normally for years. This has resulted in hordes of opposition legislators occupying the podium, and committing assault and battery. Yet never once has any of them ever been referred to the Disciplinary Committee. The legislature's self-regulatory mechanism is worthless. As a result, the majority cannot make decisions. Disruptions cannot be prevented. Consultations remain opaque. Discipline cannot be imposed. The system remains riddled with defects. The KMT governs ineffectively. Whom should be blamed? 

Most media polls are unfavorable to President Ma. Many in the KMT are defecting. Some are attempting to effect a reconciliation between Ma and Wang. But we hope President Ma will uphold justice and refuse to retreat. We call on the people to offer their support and to transcend partisanship. Use this rare opportunity to address the problem, to bring order out of chaos, and to restore the legislature to its normal functions.

社論-國會功能正常化 更是大是大非
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年09月26日 04:10

馬王纏鬥不休,民進黨見獵心喜,加碼國民黨黨內博弈,政治陷入僵局。馬英九強調國會議長不容司法關說,必須堅持大是大非,馬王鬥已無迴旋空間,只能靜待司法解決。司法關說紅線不容踰越,的確是應該堅持的是非之辨;但真正要緊的在於,此次政治風暴是否能讓大家徹底警醒:立法院如果繼續無理性癱瘓下去,不立刻重振民主正常國會應有的效能,國家競爭力將持續流失,吃虧的將是全體百姓。

無論從病灶的明顯性、出現的頻繁性,乃至解決的急迫性來看,立法院表面上看起來活蹦亂跳、新聞高潮迭起,實質上卻是百病纏身,隨時都會中風癱瘓;立法院「隱性癱瘓」的結構性問題,比司法關說問題的嚴重性不惶多讓,亟待治療復建的必要性同樣迫切。長久以來,立院未必是民主多元意見的匯聚地,反倒更像是朝野政治角力的鬥獸場;檯面上重覆出現占據主席台、立委們叫罵扭打的場景,檯面下則是朝野黨團關起門來,熟練進行著各種法案與利益的密室協商。在密室陰暗處搞久了,全民也跟著麻木了,逐漸把國會這些不正常的行徑當成了正常。

如果不是此次馬王鬥政治風暴的層面夠廣、力道夠大,說實在的,還真不容易引爆出這麼深的檢討與反思;我們也相信,在政局危疑震撼,經濟民生都可能受到衝擊之際,民眾將會清醒過來,期待正常的朝野關係與有效能的立法院。民眾需要顧全大局、真正能夠解決問題的政治領袖,更需要有效能、為全民利益著想的立法委員。正因如此,此次馬王鬥所引發的政治風暴,不應該只停留在政爭的迷思,而必須有更前瞻的思考和更有魄力的行動。我們要強力呼籲,積非成是、因循舊習的立法院,必須徹底改革,重建民主機制,回歸正常功能,這才是真正造福國家、對全民負責,更要堅持到底的大是大非!

這次立法院開議,王金平重回議場主持,有人認為這是回到保王派的「主場優勢」,但深究其實,卻又未必。畢竟王金平雖然可能暫時獲得民意同情,卻不代表民眾認同王主導下的國會議事運作。重回國會現場,朝野惡鬥、議事效能不彰,立刻現出原形,必然重新喚起民意對立法院的惡感與反思,對釐清馬王之爭,乃至改革立法院積弊與制度毒瘤,未始不是正面刺激;特別是對有心求和、宣稱「忠黨愛國」的王院長,尤應嚴肅思考如何回應重振國會正常功能的社會期盼。

本報社論之前曾經直指「國會亂象,王金平難辭其咎」,現在更要再次強調,民主政治標舉的是少數服從多數,多數尊重少數,現在立法院卻完全亂了套,已完全違背民主常理。立法委員早已定期改選,每一個立法委員背後都代表民意。但立法院現行黨政協商制度,3席立委是1個黨團、國民黨64席也是1個黨團,議事影響力無分軒輊,民主政治多數決的原則蕩然無存,多數黨背後代表的多數民意,完全失去應有的價值,當然多數選民會備感挫折。尤有甚者,根據《立法院職權行使法》,議案進行協商時須全程錄影錄音、並將紀錄刊登公報,但此規定形同具文,從未落實,導致朝野黨團另闢天地密室協商,法案全憑關門搞定,既不公開也無由監督,醜聞不斷。更嚴重的後遺症是,徹底架空了各委員會分層負責、專業審查的正常立法程序,立法品質大大退步。

此外,立院雖設有紀律委員會,且明訂犯紀行為與處罰規定,但從院長到立委或基於做人情關係、或因為相互袒護做爛好人,多年來幾乎從未行使正常功能;致使在野黨立委動輒霸占主席台、進行肢體衝撞,但卻從未見移送紀律委員會,國會自律機制等於是自廢武功、形同虛設。如此多數不能決、擾亂不能治、協商不透明、犯紀不能罰,百病齊發,國民黨執政無效能,其誰怪之!

儘管當前的民意調查與多數媒體報導方向對馬總統不利,國民黨內也不斷有各方人士奔走,試圖促成馬王和解;但我們期許馬總統,正義是非的堅持不可退卻,更呼籲全民共同支持,跳脫政爭表象,藉此難得契機,直指問題本質,撥亂反正,一舉導正亂象,重振國會正常功能!

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Taipei an Asset not a Liability in Beijing-Washington Relations

Taipei an Asset not a Liability in Beijing-Washington Relations
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 25, 2013


Summary: Win-win, and win-win-win, should be the common goal. Beijing-Washington-Taipei relations can become a force for good. The Ma administration must consider other possibilities and adopt concrete measures. It must turn concepts into policies. This is the only responsible approach.

Full text below:

Mainland Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who is currently in the U.S., has mentioned the "Taiwan issue" several times. First, he said that the "Taiwan issue" is manageable. Secondly, he said Beijing hopes Washington understands and respects the Chinese mainland's opposition to separatism. Beijing is committed to peaceful reunification. It hopes to transform the Taiwan issue from a liability to an asset in Sino-US relations. It wants peace not war, cooperation not confrontation, and communications not isolation. He said this is the shared aspiration of people on both sides of the Strait. His remarks were brief but exhaustive.

Minister Wang Yi's remarks may have been directed at Washington. But they also reflect the Beijing authorities' assessment of the current international situation and cross-Strait situation, as well as his own. They even suggest the possibility of a future cross-Strait, trilateral relationship. They reveal Beijing's rational and pragmatic side. Clearly the Beijing authorities have no intention of seeking confrontation with Washington over international and cross-strait issues. Beijing even expressed the hope that Washington and Taipei could take benign interaction as their point of departure, and allow the three parties to interact in a positive manner. This is good news indeed.

Beijing is enaged in Big Power diplomacy with Washington, Brussels, and Tokyo. But it has not neglected relations with developing countries and neighboring countries. It continues to promote its Peaceful Neighbor, Good Neighbor, and Enrich Thy Neighbor policies. It continues to establish partnerships with these countries. Beijing genuinely desires a stable international and domestic environment. It wants to pursue economic growth. It wants to buy time to resolve its myriad internal problems. Beijing may want to reduce U.S. influence in the Asian Pacific region. But it has no intention of driving the United States out of Asia. Beijing has no intention of taking on the role of troublemaker.

Wang Yi's remarks show that Beijing understands the intricacies of the "Taiwan issue." In the short run, the Taiwan issue cannot be resolved. Pulling on the shoots in an effort to achieve short term results will only be counterproductive. Realistically, Beijing's control is limited. It has no wish to let the situation get out of hand. Both sides have bigger fish to fry. They have more urgent problems and common interests to address. Beijing does not want to complicate relations with Washington. Any confrontation would only lead to a lose-lose outcome. Nor would Taipei necessarily benefit from any Beijing-Washington confrontation.

Taipei has also long abandoned any zero sum game strategy to undermine Beijing-Washington relations. Taipei realizes that such a strategy would not be in Taipei's interests. A stable Beijing-Washington relationship is consistent with the interests of all parties in the region. The most important thing is to prevent accidents. President Ma said Taipei wants to be a responsible stakeholder, a peacemaker rather than a troublemaker. This means that for Beijing and Washington, Taipei is an asset rather than a liability.

Of course merely refraining from undermining the healthy development of Beijing-Washington relations is not enough. Taipei must seek an active role in the development of Beijing-Washington relations. Taipei must be willing and able to help. Beijing and Washington must adopt the proper posture. Taipei must not engage in wishful thinking. When Taipei considers its own interests, it must take into account the nation's general welfare and long-term development. In particular, it must avoid becoming a tool of foreign governments' attempting to contain the Chinese mainland.

When outside observers discuss Beijing-Washington, Washington-Taipei, and cross-Strait relations, they know that the trilateral and bilateral relationship is unequal. Taiwan's wariness and the Chinese mainland's caution are understandable. But Washington does want to see a different Chinese mainland. It wants to see a moderate, rational, reformist, free market, confident, anger-free Chinese mainland, that has joined the international community and accepted mainstream international values. Similarly, Washington hopes the two sides of the Strait will communicate, engage in long-term dialogue, reduce tensions, and strengthen exchanges. This is consistent with the long-term national interests of the United States.

Some blast the US for having hidden agendas. Some note that U.S. policy toward Mainland China contains internal contradictions. Mainland China's reforms and market opening mean it will eventually become strong, and inevitably challenge U.S. hegemony. Continued improvement in cross-Strait relations will reduce Taipei's vigilance, deepen mutual interdependence, and lead to eventual reunification. But Washington says it values process over results. During the process, Washington will naturally make whatever responses and preparations are necessary. Deductive logic and US rhetoric both call for a wait and see attitude. Time will tell.

Minister Wang Yi explained Beijing's strategic position. He said its policies would prove that it seeks cooperation, and that it has no intention of making trouble. As the saying goes, character determines destiny, vision determines direction. The direction of cross-Strait and trilateral relations is a matter of intent. Simply put, Taipei must seize the initiative. It must promote the development of improved Beijing-Washington relations. It must take on this role by itself. It must combine "Love of Taiwan" and the "China Dream." This is essential to the tripartite Beijing-Washington-Taipei relationship.

Win-win, and win-win-win, should be the common goal. Beijing-Washington-Taipei relations can become a force for good. The Ma administration must consider other possibilities and adopt concrete measures. It must turn concepts into policies. This is the only responsible approach.

社論-台灣是中美關係資產而非負債
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年09月25日 04:10

目前正在美國進行訪問的中國大陸外交部長王毅幾度提及所謂的台灣問題。首先,他表示,台灣問題目前是在可控制的範圍之內;其次,他更進一步強調,北京希望美方切實理解和尊重中國大陸反對分裂、致力和平統一的努力,要把台灣問題從中美關係中的負債變成資產,而要和平不要戰爭,要合作不要對抗,要交往不要隔絕已是兩岸人民共同的願望等等。言簡意賅、面面俱到。

客觀的來看,王毅部長的前述談話雖然是對美國所說,但已全盤反映出中國大陸當局和其本人對當前國際及兩岸局勢的判斷,甚至是對未來兩岸三邊關係的一種善意的期許,展現出北京理性、務實的一面。顯然,在國際及兩岸問題上,北京當局沒有與美國尋求對抗的意圖,中共甚至還主動的表達希望,期望華府或台北也能從良性交往的角度出發,讓三邊關係進入一個良性互動的局面。好事一樁。

根據了解,北京在和美國、歐盟、日本進行大國外交的同時,並未忽略對發展中國家及周邊國家的經營,其安鄰、睦鄰、富鄰的政策,和相關國家建立各種合作夥伴關係的作為都在持續的推動之中,中共確實需要一個安定的國際及國內環境,追求經濟成長,爭取時間來解決內部叢生的問題。北京即或想要降低美國在亞太地區的影響力,但無意把美國趕出亞洲。北京確實沒有主動惹事生非的意圖。

同樣的,王毅的談話中也顯示出,北京已然理解所謂的台灣問題錯綜複雜,不是短期內能夠得到解決,揠苗助長或急功近利只能壞事,中共只能務實的將問題控制在一定的範圍之內,至少中短期之內不要使情況失控,畢竟中美雙方都有更重要、更巨大、更迫切的問題和共同利益需要處理,不希望雙方再把事情搞得更為複雜,而對抗的結果只會造成雙輸的結果。中美對抗,台北也未必能夠因此得利。

與此相似的是,台灣也早就放棄破壞中美關係的零和心態和作法,台北應該已經理解,只要不是以台灣的利益為代價,一個穩定、良好的中美關係是符合所有各方及整個區域相關國家的共同利益,當前最重要的就是不要有任何意外出現。馬總統說,台灣要扮演一個負責任利害相關者的角色,台灣是一個和平的締造者,而非麻煩製造者,這就意味著對中美雙方而言,台灣其實是一個資產而非負債。

當然,如果只是消極的不破壞中美關係的良性發展其實是不夠的,台灣如何在中美關係發展的過程中,發揮主動而且積極的角色仍然有待進一步思考,這裡面不但牽涉到台灣的意願與能力問題,也和中國大陸及美國的態度與立場有關。台北一廂情願的想法與作法未必能夠成事,重要的是台灣在考慮自身利益的同時,要能兼顧民族的整體和長遠發展,尤其要避免成為外國牽制中國大陸發展的工具。

向來,外界在討論中美、美台、兩岸關係的時候,大家都知道這是一個不對等的三邊、雙邊關係,台灣的戒心與大陸的謹慎都可以理解,但美國確實是一直強調希望見到一個溫和、理性、改革、開放、具有安全感、心中沒有憤怒、融入國際社會、接受國際主流價值的中國;同樣的,美國也希望兩岸能夠透過長期的溝通、對話,降低緊張,加強互動與往來,因為唯有如此才最符合美國長遠的國家利益。

有人從邏輯推理的角度出發,痛斥美國包藏禍心,有人指出美國的對華政策有其內在的矛盾,因為一個改革開放的中國終將變得強大,必然會挑戰美國的霸權;而兩岸關係的持續改善將會降低台灣的心防,加深兩岸的相互依賴,將使統一成為無可避免的趨勢,但是美方的論辯則是,華府重視的是過程而非結果,在這個過程中,美國自然會順勢做出應有的因應和準備。不管是邏輯推理還是美方論辯,都有待將來的發展驗證了。

王毅部長從戰略高度出發說明北京的基本立場,接著由策略作為表明其追求合作,無意生事的態度。俗話說,格局決定結局,視野指引方向,將來兩岸三邊關係的何去何從,其實就在一念之間。簡單的說,台灣應化被動為主動,把自己轉變成為促進中美關係發展、自己一併發展的新角色。如何把台灣情與中國夢成功的結合起來,這樣的正面能量才是中美及台灣三方都極為需要的。

雙贏、三贏、多贏應該是我們共同追求的理想與目標,中美台三方確實都可以發揮正面的力量,馬政府當局更應該進一步的構思,採取具體措施,把概念化為行動與政策,這才是負責任的作法。

Monday, September 23, 2013

A Morsel of Gruel in a Pot of Mouse Droppings

A Morsel of Gruel in a Pot of Mouse Droppings
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 24, 2013


Summary: Those who view the case differently than apologists for Wang and Ker need not feel helpless. The pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction. The pot full of mouse droppings still contains a few morsels of gruel. Such reversals of fortune repeatedly take place on Taiwan, with ECFA, U.S. beef imports, and other political debates. Now is the time for this to take effect in the Wang Ker case.

Full text below:

Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming colluded in influence peddling. They were "two mouse droppings who ruined an entire pot of gruel." They were responsible for a constitutional rule scandal. As expected, they cast themselves as Wang and Ker, two heroes standing shoulder to shoulder, in an epic battle against an unjust political system. Suddenly, the public expressed overwhelming support for these two "defiant heroes," these "victims of political persecution."

News of the scandal broke just over ten days ago. For the first few days, there was little latitude to view this case with different eyes. Apologists for Wang and Ker successfully created an atmosphere that stifled all dissent. Many who saw the case differently felt powerless. They wondered "How can a morsel of gruel survive in a pot of mouse droppings?"

Finally however, over the last several days, the pendulum has swung the other way. Many of those who saw the case differently, like morsels of gruel in a pot of mouse droppings, are finally being seen and heard. This may enable the public to achieve a more balanced view of the case. Take three examples.

One. Hong Kong author Ma Jia-hui contributed an article to this newspaper's "Hall of Fame" section. He said that if the case had occurred in Hong Kong, the charge would have been "obstruction of justice." The maximum penalty would have been life imprisonment, the same as for murder. Two. Scholar Liao Yuan-hao noted in this newspaper's "public forum" section that Grand Justices Interpretation 331 states "(Central government representatives without portfolio) who lose their eligibility as elected members of their political party... also lose their eligibility as central government representatives. This is the intent of the constitutional provision for (central government representatives without portfolio)." He also cited the example of 1999 National Assembly Speaker Su Nan-cheng. Su was expelled from the party for presiding over National Assembly Members enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayers. Three. Scholar Pang Ming-fai blogged that Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming should assume political responsibility for their actions and step down. He said the DPP's attempt to topple Ma while rationalizing Ting Ker's crimes, show that the party "lacks any sense of justice." He said the DPP ought to take disciplinary action against the two men. Their "highest goal should be to sacrifice the least to protect the most."

These three views have reaffirmed the truth. Once the scandal erupted, four solutions were possible. One. The responsible parties could resign on their own initiative. This is inevitable in advanced democracies. It is the least costly solution for the public. But it is useless against those who feel no sense of shame.

Two. The two men could be subjected to criminal prosecution. In Hong Kong obstruction of justice would be treated the same as murder. The ROC has a "Legislative Practices Act" that expressly prohibits lawmakers from exerting undue influence in ongoing criminal cases. But it specifies no penalties. Remember the back room deals during the amending of the Sunshine Law and the Accounting Law? The result was no punishment whatsoever was specified for violators. Would a criminal investigation into Wang Jin-pyng's influence peddling prove money changed hands in a "quid pro quo" transaction? Probably not. Proof and conviction could be difficult. Hence the decision to resort to "administrative investigation." This decision led to oversights during the transition. Yet the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan himself alleged the "need for opposition party cooperation to pass the Ministry of Justice budget." He then proceeded to exert undue influence on the criminal justice system, on behalf of the opposition DPP party whip. Such political quid pro quo transactions are actually far more serious than monetary quid pro quo transactions. Yet our nation's laws specify no legal penalties whatsoever for the "murder of criminal justice."

Three. The Legislative Yuan has provisions for internal discipline. But given the political climate in today's legislature, expecting justice is a pipe dream. For example, the DPP took no action whatsoever on Ker Chien-ming. Instead, it rushed to Ker Chien-ming's defense. Instead of imposing party disciplinary measures, it asked that the case be referred to the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee. Is this not a example of "There is simply not justice to be had?"

Four. Consider party disciplinary measures. Politicians who lack any shame are unwilling to admit to wrongdoing and step down voluntarily. They cannot be successfully prosecuted by the criminal justice system. Internal Legislative Yuan disciplinary measures are even less likely to yield results. That was why referring the case to the political parties for disciplinary action was necessary. Let us take a step back for the moment. Criminal prosecution could have proceeded simultaneously. But this is a major case that impacts constitutional rule and criminal justice. The political parties must to seize the initiative and discipline Wang and Ker as soon as possible. They must immediately revoke their party membership. They must prevent the two men from hijacking the Legislative Yuan for their own purposes. How can this not be a constitutional issue? Is this not something for which the price must be minimized and the benefits maximized?

Consider the preceding four choices. Set aside the possibility that the guilty parties might resign. The most effective approach is party disciplinary measures. It is the most practicable. The price paid by the public is minimized. Unfortunately the DPP has lost its soul. It no longer has any party discipline. It no longer has any rationale to offer. The KMT imposed party discipline. Alas, it was defeated by the Taipei District Court's "injunction." This in turn touched off another debate. Is the judge some sort of overlord who outranks the party chairman? Is the judge some sort of overlord who outranks the president? Can the court be permitted to jeopardize political autonomy? Can the court be permitted to intervene in party struggles inside the legislature? Have our judges even read the Constitution? Do they know anything about the legal structures required for constitutional rule and criminal justice? Have they read the Grand Justices' constitutional interpretations? The various political parties have revoked may peoples' party memberships, including Lee Teng-hui, Hau Pei-tsun, Lin Yang-kang, James Soong, Su Nan-cheng, Tseng Li-wen, Chiu Chang, Lin Yi-shi, Lai Su-ju and Simon Lin.

Those who view the case differently than apologists for Wang and Ker need not feel helpless. The pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction. The pot full of mouse droppings still contains a few morsels of gruel. Such reversals of fortune repeatedly take place on Taiwan, with ECFA, U.S. beef imports, and other political debates. Now is the time for this to take effect in the Wang Ker case.

一鍋老鼠屎裡 仍要作一粒粥
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.24 03:28 am

王金平與柯建銘聯手關說司法個案,原是一樁「兩顆老鼠屎,弄壞一鍋粥」的憲政醜聞;詎料,竟儼然演變成王柯兩人聯袂挑戰不公不義的政治架構的悲壯史詩。一時間,社會上對兩位政治「抗爭英雄」的支持排山倒海,對這兩位政治「受難者」的同情亦是鋪天蓋地。

在十幾天前本案剛爆發的頭幾日,欲對此案提出一些相對的看法幾乎沒有任何空間,挺王挺柯的氛圍濃到令人窒息,許多對此案持不同看法者,大抵都有一種無力又無奈的感受:「在一鍋老鼠屎裡面,要如何作一粒粥?」

終於,最近幾日,鐘擺漸漸盪了回頭,許多相對的見解有如一度被老鼠屎淹沒的粥粒,逐漸露出頭角,使社會對此案之認知似有漸趨平衡的可能性。茲舉三例:

一、香港作家馬家輝在本報《名人堂》說:此案若發生在香港,是「妨害司法罪」,最高刑罰是終身監禁(無期徒刑),「跟謀殺罪同級」。二、學者廖元豪在本報《民意論壇》指出:大法官釋字三三一號解釋:「(不分區中央民代)如喪失其所由選出之政黨黨員資格時……自應喪失其中央民意代表之資格,方符憲法增設此制度(不分區中央民代)之本旨。」並舉一九九九年國民大會議長蘇南成,因主持國代「延任自肥」之決議遭開除黨籍之例。三、學者彭明輝在其部落格指出,王金平及柯建銘皆應負起政治責任自請下台,而民進黨殺馬挺柯,「真的是沒有天理!」並認為,用黨紀處分二人,是「以犧牲最小的目標,來保護最高的目標」。

以上三人的觀點,已足重建本案的原來面貌。本案發生後,約有四種可能的解決方案:一、當事人主動引咎辭職。這可謂是在民主先進國家的必然結果,也是社會成本最小的方案;但對無廉恥者無效。

二、訴諸司法訴訟。如香港可究以「與謀殺罪同級」的「妨害司法罪」。但是,儘管我國《立法委員行為法》亦明文禁止立法委員對進行中的司法案件從事遊說,卻未備罰則(請回憶陽光法案及《會計法》修正案的立法黑幕),因此根本無由訴諸刑罰。至於能否以「刑事偵查」追究王金平是否涉及關說,也因查無金錢交易的「對價關係」,難涉刑罰,因此始改由「行政調查」處理此案,其中並出現了「換軌」時的粗糙痕跡。然而,堂堂立法院長以「需要反對黨配合通過法務部預算」而為反對黨之黨鞭介入司法,這種「政治對價交易」其實較「金錢對價關係」尤為嚴重,但我國法律居然對此種「謀殺司法」的罪行全無「罪刑法定」之規範。

三、從事立法院自律。但以立院今日生態,這簡直是痴人說夢。試看:民進黨在黨紀上對柯建銘全無動作,柯建銘卻反而叫囂「自請移送立法院紀律委員會」處理,但何不自請黨紀處分?這豈非「真是沒有天理」?

四、由黨紀處分。無廉恥的政客不願認錯自行卸職,循司法途徑又無法可依,立法院自律更無可能;因而,黨紀處分遂為必要之手段。退一萬步言,即使司法訴究仍可同步進行,但對涉及憲政正義如此嚴重的巨案,各政黨若能主動從速以黨紀將王柯二人以撤銷黨籍之方法立即撤銷其立法委員之資格,以避免二人挾持立院進行抗爭,難道這不是憲政之至理?難道這不是「以犧牲最小之目標,來保護最高之目標」?

在前述四種選擇之中,除當事人引咎辭職外,其實是以黨紀處分較具效率、較符實際,且社會成本最小。但是,民進黨的黨魂已死、黨紀已死,固無論矣;國民黨則雖以黨紀處理,卻敗於台北地方法院的「假處分」訴訟。這又引爆了另一層面的爭論:法官是否太上黨主席?法官是否太上總統?法院是否可以僭越政黨自治?法院是否可以介入立法院的黨爭?我們的法官讀不讀憲法?懂不懂憲政正義的結構因素?看不看大法官的解釋文?有沒有斟酌過各政黨曾經以撤銷黨籍以上之處分,開革過李登輝、郝柏村、林洋港、宋楚瑜、蘇南成、鄭麗文、邱彰、林益世、賴素如及林世嘉?

倘若你對此案仍有不同於王柯支持者的看法,或許不必感到無奈與無力;因為,鐘擺似乎就要盪回頭了,這種「在一鍋老鼠屎裡,仍應堅持作一粒粥」的故事,其實在台灣不斷重複上演。在ECFA、美牛案及無數政治辯論中皆曾演出過,只是如今又異曲同工地換到了王柯案。

Special Investigation Unit: Collateral Damage in a Power Struggle?

Special Investigation Unit: Collateral Damage in a Power Struggle?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 23, 2013


Summary: If the Wang Ker influence peddling case is not prosecuted, if Huang Shi-ming and the Special Investigation Unit become scapegoats of the annual September political struggles, then political influence will have undermined criminal justice. This would be worrisome for ruture prosecutorial authority. It would also be worrisome for the rule of law on Taiwan.

Full text below:

The legislature is gridlocked. The opposition DPP is demanding that Huang Shi-ming be replaced, and that the Special Investigation Unit be disbanded. This is their precondition for allowing Premier Chiang Yi-hua to ascend the podium to address policy. Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming, who exposed the influence peddling scandal, is currently under intense pressure. He faces a grim fate, and may well be fired.

The Special Investigation Unit was established seven years ago. The Prosecutor General's "Black Gold Investigation Center" was officially established. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party and prosecutors worked to promote reform and amend the laws. They enabled the president to nominate the prosecutor general with the consent of the Legislative Yuan. They gave him a four-year term, with tenure. The purpose was to make him impervious to political pressure. He could safely deal with cases independently. But to their surprise, the Special Investigation Unit revealed that Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng was busy peddling influence on behalf of Green Camp legislator Ker Chien-ming. They are now determined to eradicate the Special Investigation Unit they established back then out of "idealism." Apparently the Prosecutor General's tenure can also be abolished with the wave of a hand. What was right yesterday is suddenly wrong today. When it comes to demands for justice, the DPP blows hot and cold. Its notion of justice is as changeable as the wind.

The DPP accuses Huang Shi-ming of ordering the Special Investigation Unit to engage in "illegal wiretapping" of legislators, and of supplying this information to President Ma, to be used in political struggles. The DPP accuses him of acting like a secret police head. It says this is why it is demanding that Huang Shi-ming step down, and the Special Investigation Unit be disbanded. In fact, the prosecutors' request for wiretapping was subject to court review. The Special Investigation Unit must obtain a warrant, issued by a judge, before it can engage in wiretapping. Therefore how can the DPP claim that the wiretaps were "illegal?" If a judge issued warrants indiscriminately, or if legal norms were violated, then the process should be improved by amending the laws. One cannot simply label it illegal wiretapping.

Huang Shi-ming allegedly conveyed this information to President Ma during the dead of night. Perhaps impatience got the better of him. Perhaps he was reckless, and his actions questionable. Huang Shi-ming met President Ma and held a press conference with the Special Investigation Unit, to recommend that Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming be disciplined by the legislature. Perhaps when presenting the case against them, he revealed a hint of Schadenfreude. Perhaps he was merely anxious becasue he feared the scandal would be swept under the rug. But to allege that he was part of an elaborate conspiracy and political struggle, to label him a secret police head, is grossly unfair.

Huang Shi-ming's investigation of the Wang Ker scandal shows his determination to investigate and prosecute anyone guilty of influence peddling, no matter how connected or powerful. If one genuinely wants to implement the rule of law on Taiwan, why would one object to a prosecutor general who aggressively fights crimes perpetrated by the rich and powerful? Unfortunately, while dealing with this unprecedented case of high level influence peddling, certain procedural steps were overlooked, and provided a convenient pretext for political intervention.

Let us return to the original event. Wang Jin-pyng's involvement in the Ker Chien-ming influence peddling scandal came to light purely by accident. The Special Investigation Unit was listening in on Ker Chien-ming over another case. They inadvertently overheard Wang Jin-pyng call Ker Chien-ming. Wang interceded on behalf of Ker in the Formosa Telecom Investment Co embezzlement case. Wang Jinping helped Ker Chien-ming look into the case. Wang learned that the original prosecutor had been transferred, replaced by Lin Hsiu-tao. Wang said Lin was one of the "Yong Bo" faction. He said the High Court Prosecutor-General Chen Shou-huang wanted him to call the Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu and inform Ker that "Yong Bo" said he would handle the case, and that everything would be "Okay."

This is confirmed by Lin Hsiu-tao's testimony. She said Chen Shou-huang mentioned her "budget" pressures. She said Chen advised her not to appeal the Ker Chien-ming embezzlement case. She said, otherwise she would have appealed because everyone knew it was the right thing to do. When Lin Hsiu-tao returned to her office she told her colleagues, "This is great. Now we no longer need to bother drafting an appeal." Lin Hsiu-tao's account filled in the missing spaces in the wiretap transcript.

Generally speaking, it is difficult to win a conviction in an influence peddling case. Third parties are seldom present when influence peddling is going on. Also, the verbal exchanges often invoke exalted moral principles. Those involved seldom issue specific instructions. If one lacks an actual recording of the deal going down, it is difficult to prove unless the accused confess. The Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal however, includes wire tap transcripts, specific proposals, and evidence that influence peddling was accepted by the prosecutor. The evidence in this case was not easily come by.

Some argue that legislators peddling influence with the judicial branch is not punishable by law. Some argue that Huang Shi-ming's investigation was relentless, that he abused his authority, and that prosecution was difficult. They say that was why he opted for an administrative investigation. The speaker of the legislature peddling influence in the judicial yuan is no small affair. In the future, a prosecutor may be evaluating a case, the Control Yuan may be impeaching an official, or the legislature may be imposing internal discipline. Wire tap information or the prosecutor's transcripts of witness testimony, should be considered the basis for any administrative investigation, and the determination of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, Huang Shi-ming failed to take into account one important factor. Once the case is turned into an administrative investigation, the issue of administrative subordination and authority arises. If the incident involves the Minister of Justice, he must report to his superiors. Also the Executive Yuan cannot directly report to the president. A thorough administrative investigation must give the accused an opportunity to explain. But Huang Shi-ming ignored these steps. He conveyed this information in the dead of night to the presidential residence. This invited accusations that he exceeded his authority. It also put himself and the Special Investigation Unit smack dab in the middle of a political storm.

Suggestions that the Special Investigation Unit be disbanded are not unjustified. The absence of a Special Investigation Unit did not prevent prosecutors from prosecuting former President Chen Shui-bian's state affairs fund case. The key is the prosecutors awareness and determination. During the current political storm, the Special Investigation Unit may have failed to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s. But overall, its achievements outweighed its failures. Its dissolution is something that can be discussed. But it should not become collateral damage in a political struggle.

If the Wang Ker influence peddling case is not prosecuted, if Huang Shi-ming and the Special Investigation Unit become scapegoats of the annual September political struggles, then political influence will have undermined criminal justice. This would be worrisome for ruture prosecutorial authority. It would also be worrisome for the rule of law on Taiwan.

不可讓特偵組成為政治鬥爭的陪葬品
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.23 03:17 am

立法院空轉中,在野黨提出「撤換黃世銘」、「廢除特偵組」的要求,作為讓閣揆江宜樺上台作施政報告的條件。至此,揭露關說的檢察總長黃世銘如同千斤壓頂,面臨去留的嚴酷關鍵。

最高檢特偵組成立於七年多前,由高檢署的「查緝黑金中心」法制化變身而來。當時,執政的民進黨和檢察官改革協會合力推動修法,讓檢察總長改由總統提名、經立法院同意,並有四年任期保障;其目的,是使其無須仰政治鼻息,可以安心獨立辦案。誰料,當特偵組查獲立法院長王金平為綠委柯建銘關說,當初成立特偵組的初衷與理想立即被一筆抹殺,總長的任期保障也似乎可以瞬間勾銷。政治的昨非今是、翻雲覆雨,何其善變!

在民進黨眼中,黃世銘率特偵組對立委「非法監聽」,且提供資料給馬總統搞政爭,行徑有如東廠特務,因而點名黃世銘下台,並要廢除特偵組。事實上,檢察官監聽須經法院審核,特偵組以偵辦需要取得法官核發的通訊監察書,怎能說成「非法監聽」?若是法官核准浮濫,或法律規範不周延,那也應修法改善核准機制,不能誣指為非法監聽。

至於黃世銘連夜提供關說資料給馬總統,或顯得急躁與輕率,在體制上亦有可議之處。然而,從黃世銘不諱言他見馬總統的時點,及特偵組召開記者會建議將王金平、柯建銘送交國會自律等情形,在在說明黃世銘或許有見獵心喜之意,或擔心案件被搓掉之急躁;但要因此將他冠上陰謀政爭、東廠特務之名,顯非公允。

平心而論,黃世銘戮力追究王柯案,展現的是「無論誰關說都要究辦」的決心;從法治的進步與落實而言,難道台灣社會不樂見一位積極打擊「權貴犯罪」的總長?遺憾的是,在處理這件史無前例的高層關說案的行政處理上,也有若干程序欠周詳之處,以致政治力可以見縫插針。

回到事件原點檢視,王金平涉入柯建銘關說案之所以曝光,完全是意外。特偵組是在監聽柯建銘的另一個案件時,意外聽到王金平打給柯建銘,為其全民電通背信官司再上訴之事穿梭說項。王金平為柯建銘打聽到,原來的承辦檢察官調動,改由林秀濤接手,稱她是「勇伯」的人;並表示高檢署檢察長陳守煌要他打電話給法務部長曾勇夫,並告知柯,「勇伯」說會處理,OK了。

再對照林秀濤證詞,稱陳守煌跟她提到「預算」的壓力,提到柯建銘認為最好不要上訴,建議她不要上訴;否則,她應會上訴,以杜悠悠之口。林秀濤回到辦公室還對同事說,真好,不必寫上訴書了。林秀濤的說詞,填補了監聽的不足。

一般而言,司法關說很難成案,因為關說通常沒有外人在場,且言語上常常是「高來高去」地提點,鮮少具體指示;若沒有一翻兩瞪眼的錄音,或當事人承認,很難成立。就王金平關說案而言,不但有監聽譯文、又有具體建議及接受關說檢察官的證詞,全案呈現的證據,就關說案來說已屬難得。

由於立委關說司法並無刑責,黃世銘在查無對價關係、濫權追訴又難成立的考量下,才會改移行政調查。國會議長為立委關說司法個案,事情絕非小可;將來,無論是檢察官評鑑、監察院彈劾或國會自律,監聽資料或檢察官的證詞筆錄,應可作為認定行政責任的依據,以鑑是非。

遺憾的是,黃世銘未考慮到,一旦轉成行政調查,就有行政隸屬及權責的問題。就算因事涉法務部長,他必須越級報告,也還有行政院一級,不宜直接轉向總統。此外,完整的行政調查,應給當事人說明的機會;但黃世銘忽略這些眉角,拿著資料夜奔總統官邸,不但招來濫權之評,也讓自己和特偵組被推上政爭風暴的最前線。

特偵組的存廢,確有仁智之見。因為,在沒有特偵組的時代,檢察官還是辦了前總統陳水扁的國務機要費案,重點在檢察官的自覺和決心。但從這次風暴的本質看,特偵組雖有細節可議,但整體而言是功大於過;無論如何,其存廢可以討論,卻不能在不明事理的鬥爭氣氛中淪為政治陪葬品。

如果王柯關說案沒有辦,黃世銘及特偵組卻因此葬身於九月政爭,無異是政治力侵犯司法權成功,未來檢察權堪慮,台灣法治亦堪憂。

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

A Premier Not Guilty of Influence Peddling Apologizes to a Speaker Guilty of Influence Peddling

A Premier Not Guilty of Influence Peddling Apologizes to a Speaker Guilty of Influence Peddling
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 18, 2013


Summary: Premier Chiang Yi-hua did not commit the crime of influence peddling. Yet demagogues are demanding that he apologize to Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng. This indicates that democracy on Taiwan is actually moving backwards. Right and wrong have been been turned upside down. We remind the public on of Taiwan. Keep a clear head. Do not fall into the politicians' traps. Do not parrot their scripted slogans. Only mature and independent citizens can keep the faith and retain their independence, Only they can prevent democracy from becoming a mirage.

Full text below:

The headline "influence peddling scandal" has replaced "September political struggles." That fact means the public has already forgotten what lies at the heart of the influence peddling scandal. Premier Chiang Yi-hua did not commit the crime of influence peddling. Yet demagogues are demanding that he apologize to Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng. This indicates that democracy on Taiwan is actually moving backwards. Right and wrong have been been turned upside down.

The scene described took place yesterday in the Legislative Yuan. Many people probably no longer feel pain when witnessing such scenes. They feel only a surreal sense of the absurd. The opposition DPP engaged in obstructionism. It trotted out its tired old political tricks. The public no longer falls for them. But this time, political and judicial right and wrong were turned upside down with shocking ease. Guilt and innocence were reversed, overnight. Influence peddlers were able to adopt a posture of self-righteousness. This shows that the dark side of politics on Taiwan is once again on the rise.

DPP officials dressed themselves in black. They occupied the center of the legislative chambers. They shouted "Down with Chiang Yi-hua for violating the law and inciting chaos." They simply copied the trappings of the White Shirts and the Red Shirts. Inside however, their posturing was "content free." Green Camp legislators held up protest signs and posed for pictures in front of Premier Chiang's empty seat. Their antics underscored the fact that they merely "dropped in for a visit." Most appalling of all was a Green Camp list of demands for Premier Chiang. It included a demand that Chiang Yi-hua apologize to Wang Jin-pyng, disband the Special Investigation Unit, and suspend and investigate Prosecutor General Huang Shi-ming. A few short days was all that it took to drop the influence peddling scandal down the memory hole. Those investigating the influence peddling scandal became the whipping boys, the targets of mob passions. Politics on Taiwan is political roulette. The outcome is often more outrageous than outright cheating.

Admittedly, the political situation degenerated to this level in part because President Ma and his administration committed several tactical faux pas. They cannot escape blame for them. For example, they should not have chosen the day Wang Jin-pyng's daughter was getting married to take action. This created a political embarrassment abroad, casting doubt on our democracy and its rule of law. This hurt the feelings of many on Taiwan. The Ma administration should have given the parties a chance to defend themselves. They ordered the Party Disciplinary Committee to act. They gave many the impression they were engaged in political persecution. When party elders came forth to moderate the crisis, the Ma administration should not have allowed Young Turks to behave indiscriminately. That gave many the impression they lacked respect. They should have proceeded more carefully. They should not have imposed such a heavy punishment without first laying the groundwork. They provoked charges that their actions were "unconstitutional" and "disproportionate." Once the court gave the influence peddlers a free pass, they were left without a legal leg to stand on. All of the above have led to increasingly tangled and intractable problems. It makes it difficult for people to sympathize with them.

But let us return to the scandal itself. Let us examine the influence peddling case, from beginning to end. When all is said and done, the facts of the case are crystal clear. Certain technical blunders were made. Certain ways of the world were ignored. Certain peoples' feelings were hurt. But does that mean the original crime has magically vanished into thin air? Consider public perception. Different politicians evince different styles, some hard, some soft. Each have their merits. But from the standpoint of the nation, must public likes and dislikes for certain politicians trump objectivity and right and wrong in public affairs?

The Special Investigation Unit investigated Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming for influence peddling. Suppose the Special Investigation Unit had chosen not to report their crimes? Suppose the President had chosen to ignore them? How would the public have reacted then? Would it not have seen the administration's actions as evidence of a white-wash and covering up? The influence peddling scandal has come to light. A political struggle has followed. Yet lo and behold, those who peddled influence have have become the big winners. They are now demanding that the premier bow and scrape and apologize to them. The Special Investigation Unit, which uncovered the crime has fared even worse. It is being accused of "illegal wiretapping" and faces demands that it be abolished, Huang Shi-ming faces suspension and investigation. Will the situation really degenerates to that level? If it does, then there will no longer be any shred of justice to be had on Taiwan. There will no longer be any justice for the justice system on Taiwan to pursue.

The only good news to come out of the current political struggle is that during the struggle, few claimed that "A mainlander president is persecuting a Taiwanese speaker!" This suggests that to some extent Taiwan has left behind the issue of provincial origins. More troubling is the public's preference for "feelings" over right and wrong. This preference led people to dismiss influence peddling as if it were nothing of importance. Is this merely a temporary phenomenon, or is it deeply rooted in democracy on Taiwan? The question is worth pondering. The influence peddling case was so clear cut, so cut and dried. Yet it was given a free pass as a result of peoples' "feelings." Under the circumstances, how long will it be before Taiwan adopts the rule of law?

The political situation remains treacherous. We call on the Ma administration to go by the book, to dot every i and cross every t. You must no longer act recklessly. Only 9% of the public still supports you. A single misstep and you will fall off a cliff. We call on ruling and opposition members of the Legislative Yuan. Do not play games with the nation's political institutions. Wang Jin-pyng has achieved a temporary lead in this game. That does not mean he is home free. More importantly, it does not mean that inaction on the part the legislature is legitimate, or that the legislature may abuse its authority. Quite the contrary. A legislature drunk with power can easily step on a landmine. The pendulum will eventually swing the other way. People will realize that the Legislative Yuan was the real source of the problem to begin with.

We remind the public on of Taiwan. Keep a clear head. Do not fall into the politicians' traps. Do not parrot their scripted slogans. Only mature and independent citizens can keep the faith and retain their independence, Only they can prevent democracy from becoming a mirage.

沒關說的院長須向有關說的院長道歉?
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.18 02:08 am

當「關說案」一詞被「九月政爭」替代,人們即可知這次事件最核心的「司法關說」要素,已經遭到遺忘。因此,當沒有關說的行政院長江宜樺,被要求向涉及關說的立法院長王金平道歉,也就意味台灣經歷這次政爭,民主政治其實是在向後倒退,是非價值則被踐踏。

昨天發生在立法院的景象,看在許多民眾眼裡,也許已不再有「痛心」的感覺,而只是感到極度的荒謬與不現實。在野黨的議事杯葛,招術已用老,大家也已司空見慣;但這一次,政治和司法的是非黑白竟然那麼容易被推倒,有罪和無罪的認定竟然可以一夕角色互換,關說者竟能如此義正詞嚴而趾高氣昂,在在讓人看到台灣政治黑色逆流的洶湧。

穿著黑衣的民進黨,煞有介事地站在議場中央高喊「江宜樺違法亂政、下台」,其實只是抄襲了「白衫軍」及「紅衫軍」的形式,談不上任何創意。包括綠委舉著大字報在江揆的空位前輪流拍照留影,顯示這天的意義,對他們而言只不過是「到此一遊」而已。但令人驚悚的是,看看綠營提出讓江揆上台報告的條件,包括江宜樺向王金平道歉、廢特偵組、檢察總長黃世銘停職並接受調查等;不過幾天的時間,關說案不僅被吃得一乾二淨,調查和處理關說案的人竟全部被定調為罪人和打擊對象。台灣的政治輪盤,似乎比詐賭還厲害。

不可否認,政局會陷入如此膠著與倒錯的泥沼,馬總統及其團隊確實犯了不少「技術上」的錯誤,難辭其咎。諸如,不該選在王金平嫁女兒之日,隔海痛斥其為民主法治的恥辱,有悖台灣社會之人情義理;不該不給當事人申辯的機會,即逕向考紀會下達指示,予人片面打壓的印象;不該在黨內大老出面緩頰時,派出左右童子軍胡亂接招,顯得缺乏尊重;不該未經縝密沙盤推演,即輕易作出重懲,而引發「違憲」、「不符比例原則」的批評,同時一遇司法的「假處分」判決即站不住腳。這些,都導致問題愈發糾結難解,也讓民眾難以同情。

但無論如何,回到事件的原點,審視關說案的始末,其間的是非黑白脈絡畢竟相當清晰,難道可以因為處理時的若干技術性問題,或人情世故的考慮不周,就全然抹煞?在民眾的觀感而言,對於不同政治人物的軟硬身段,固然各有好憎;但從國家的立場看,公民難道能因對特定人物的好惡,而對公共事務的是非失去客觀的價值判斷?

試想,當初特偵組查獲王金平及柯建銘的關說線索,如果特偵組不報告,或總統不處理,不會被民眾視為「縱容」或「吃案」嗎?而如今關說案情公開,經過一場政治的鬥爭拉扯,竟然是被控關說的人成為最大「贏家」,要閣揆向其鞠躬道歉;而查出此案的特偵組更遭反控「非法監聽」且被要求撤廢,黃世銘則要面對停職及接受調查的命運。如果情勢真演變成那個地步,台灣政治豈有公理可言?台灣司法又豈有正義可以追尋?

這次政爭,唯一可喜之處是,坊間議論使用「外省總統打壓本省院長」論調者已不多聞,說明台灣或者某種程度已超越了省籍情結。但值得深思的是,民間在此案中對「人情」的重視竟遠甚於「是非」,以致連帶影響了人們對「關說」的容忍度。這究竟只是一時的政治氣氛驅使,或者是台灣民主政治中根深柢固的調性使然,讓人好奇。如此具體的關說案,若竟可因「人情」因素而輕輕放過,台灣究竟要何年何月才能步入法治社會?

無論如何,在當下詭譎的政治形勢中,我們呼籲馬政府必須依體制和程序步步為營,不可再魯莽行事;僅剩九趴的民意支持,一失足即有墜崖的危險。我們也呼籲立院朝野,不要再玩弄國家名器。王金平在此役的暫時領先,不代表他在法理上立於不敗,更不意味議事怠惰的立法院因此增添了任何正當性,而有恣意揮霍的權利。相反的,得意忘形的國會最容易踩到紅線,一旦鐘擺回盪,人民即刻會意識到立院才是禍害之源。

我們也要提醒台灣民眾,必須保持清明,不要隨著政治人物墜入無謂的鬥爭陷阱,或跟著選邊吶喊。唯有成熟及自主的公民,才能堅持信念與判斷,那才是讓民主免於虛幻的憑藉。


Wang Jin-pyng and the Taipei District Court's 80/20 Ruling

Wang Jin-pyng and the Taipei District Court's 80/20 Ruling
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 17, 2013


Summary: We have repeatedly argued that the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan's influence peddling within the Judicial Yuan necessitates his removal from office. Even if Wang Jin-pyng wins in the courts, even if public opinion sympathizes with Wang Jin-pyng, that does not change our opinion. We may not be able to change this "80%/20%" situation. But both our intellects and our consciences find it intolerable.

Full text below:

The following is an actual conversation that took place between two political appointees a few years ago, before the current influence peddling scandal erupted.

Political Appointee A: "Why does Wang Jin-pyng never object to paying an 80% price to get a mere 20% return on the investment in the Legislative Yuan? I don't get it."

Political Appointee B: "You need to look at it from a different perspective. The 80% price is the price paid by the tax-paying public. It comes out of the national treasury. The 20% return is in the form of favors repayable to Wang Jin-pying personally."

Recently, this newspaper commented on the influence peddling scandal. It called a spade a spade. It refrained from mentioning Wang Jin-pyng's bag of political tricks. Now however, let us examine Wang Jin-pyng's bag of political tricks more closely, so that we may better understand the nature of his influence peddling. For Wang Jin-pyng, the influence peddling scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg .

Some legislators say that under Wang Jin-pyng, the Legislative Yuan ceased being a "collegial system," and has turned into an "executive system." It is no longer a "political system controlled by political parties," but rather a "political system controlled by Wang Jin-pyng alone." Under this framework, individual lawmakers spend almost no time deliberating pending bills. All they care about is demagoguing controversial political issues. All bills are subject o "ruling and opposition party consultations." Translation: under the table deals in smoke filled back rooms. Wang Jin-pyng decides how the parties divide the spoils. He decides who gets what. He decides which party's illegal antics he will tolerate, such as the DPP's occupation of the Legislative Yuan podium. It's all up to him. The so-called "ruling and opposition party consultations" between party whips burn the midnight oil. The next morning when the vote is taken, just before the legislative session is about to adjourn, the parties instruct their legislators to toe the party line.

This is a Legislative Yuan which almost never consults over [pending bills. This is a Legislative Yuan which tramples over majority rule. Under Wang Jin-pyng's Legislative Yuan, an 80% price paid by the public, brings a 20% return. From another perspective, Wang Jin-pyng trades that 80% price paid by taxpayers, for a 20% return, payable to him personally, in the form of personal debts owed to him and the bolstering of his personal image. Wang Jin-pyng takes this 20% return, and uses it to maintain his iron grip over the Legislative Yuan. He takes the 80% price paid by the public to bolster his status as the "capo di tutti capi of the Legislative Yuan."

Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence on behalf of Ker Chien-ming. This was a textbook case of an 80% price paid by the public. It was the tip of the iceberg. Many have wondered why Wang Jin-pyng never invoked his police power to impose order when the Legislative Yuan succumbed to chaos. We now have the answer. Why would he need to invoke his police power? The fact is, no one has ever demanded that Wang Jin-pyng invoke his police power. Anyone who understands what has been going on, who realizes Wang's sole aim is to perpetuate the "Wang Regime" within the Legislative Yuan. will find his "80%/20%" power plays intolerable.

Rumors have recently emerged from the cabinet that high officials within the Legislative Yuan have peddled influence in the Executive Yuan. This can be included in the 80% price the public has paid in the Legislative Yuan. What constitutes influence peddling in the Executive Yuan may depend upon whom one asks. But influence peddling in the Justice Yuan impacts constitutional rule and criminal justice. It cannot be tolerated. Hence the question, just how badly has Wang Jin-pyng's 80% price, underwritten by the taxpayer, undermined constitutional rule and the criminal justice system?

Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence within the Judicial Yuan, undermining constitutional rule and criminal justice. He refuses to admit wrongdoing. He hijacks the political system. He hijacks the Legislative Yuan. He incites social divisions. He incites powerful but unjustified protests. What is this, if not another instance of "80% public price / 20% private gain?"

The Taipei District Court has been forced to render a civil ruling. In general, its ruling failed to see the forest for the trees. It was an outrageous ruling. It was an outrage to constitutional rule and jurisprudence.

One. A legislator without portfolio is a legislator appointed by a political party. which is answerable to the public. For example, recently the TSU stripped Simon Lin of his party membership as well as his post as legislator without portfolio, for "acting contrary to the party's decisions." Stripping Simon Lin of his party membership and his legislator without portfolio position, was the prerogative of the political party. If a political party lacks such a prerogative, how can it compel its legislators without portfolio to answer to the party? How in turn, can the party answer to the public? How can the court interfere with the already concluded party disciplinary proceedings? Is the judge an overlord who outranks the party chairman?

Two. The President is also a party chairman. As the president he cannot tolerate the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan peddling influence within the Judicial Yuan. As party chairman he must impose party discipline. In terms of constitutional law and jurisprudence, these are one and the same. Yet the court ruled that the president may not voice objections regarding constitutional rule and criminal of justice, or what constitute appropriate legal dispositions. If that is the case, how can the president possibly govern the nation? If that is the case, how can he possibly remain politically answerable? Is the judge an overlord who outranks the president?

Three. Wang Jin-pyng is no ordinary legislator. He is the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. The court knows this. Yet it considered only Wang's "civil interests." It approved the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan's continued exercise of legislative authority. It failed to recuse itself. It even refused to accept a letter from the Election Commission. If Wang loses his appeal, how cam the harm inflicted upon constitutional rule by his illegal oversight of the legislative Yuan be remedied? Does this ruling, which misses the the forest for the trees, accord with the principle of proportionality?

If this scandal had occurred in a typical business firm, the guilty parties would have been suspended or compelled to recuse themselves. Never mind a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. The Taipei District Court's ruling valued Wang Jin-pyng's 20% private interest over the 80% public price in undermined constitutional rule.

We have repeatedly argued that the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan's influence peddling within the Judicial Yuan necessitates his removal from office. Even if Wang Jin-pyng wins in the courts, even if public opinion sympathizes with Wang Jin-pyng, that does not change our opinion. We may not be able to change this "80%/20%" situation. But both our intellects and our consciences find it intolerable.

王金平與台北地院的「80/20法則」
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.17 02:59 am

以下是兩位政務官之間的對話,談話時間在幾年前,亦即在關說案風暴發生之前。

政務官甲:「王金平在立法院,為何總是以八十%的代價,換取二十%的收穫?我看不懂!」

政務官乙:「你可以換個角度看:八十%的點點滴滴皆是社會成本、國家資源付出的代價,二十%則點點滴滴皆是王金平個人的人情收穫。」

本報近日在評論關說風暴時,秉持就案論案,而未觸及王金平的政治手法與風格;但若能從王金平的整個政治風格與手法來解析,更能理解關說案的底蘊。因為,對於王金平來說,關說案其實只是冰山一角。

有立法委員說:在王金平主持下的立法院,已非「合議制」,而是「首長制」;亦非「政黨政治」,而是「王金平制」。在此一架構下,個別的立法委員平日幾乎無由參與法案研議,因此只想炒作政爭話題;至於法案的一切過程均在「朝野政黨協商」的密室黑箱中進行,而主要由王金平決定各方的法案利益如何分配,包括他也可決定將接受任何黨派的抗爭(如霸占主席台)表演到何種程度;然後,黨鞭步出所謂的「朝野協商」,各自到閉會前夕、挑燈夜戰的議場舉牌,命黨籍立委投票。

這是一個幾乎沒有法案辯論的立法院,也是一個多數原則受到高度摧殘的立法院。於是,在王金平主持下的立法院,就一直是以八十%的社會成本,換得二十%的議事表現;換個角度看,也可以說以八十%的社會成本,換來王金平二十%的開明形象與人情收穫。而王金平就以這二十%的人情收穫,創造了「立法院是首長制」的異象;並又繼續以八十%的社會成本,來鞏固他的「立法院首長制」。

王金平為柯建銘司法關說,正是十分經典式地顯露了這八十%的社會成本的冰山一角。因此,若曾有人質疑,王金平為何在立院脫序時不動用警察權?如今即可知,他豈有動用警察權的必要?其實,亦無人強要王金平動用警察權,但若明此底蘊,恐怕也無人能接受他用這樣的「八十/二十」操作,來維持他在立法院的「王氏首長制」。

內閣近日流傳立院高層許多駭人聽聞的「行政關說」,那些亦可列在維持立院運作的八十%社會成本的帳單上。然而,行政關說容可見仁見智,但司法關說卻攸關憲政正義,絕無寬縱餘地;且由此亦可質疑:王金平的八十%社會成本中,究竟耗損了多少憲政正義?

如今犯下司法關說憲政天條的王金平,非但不認錯,反而挾持政局、挾持立法院、撕裂社會,進行有力無理的抗爭。這豈不又是一場「八十%社會代價/二十%個人收穫」法則的極致演出?

行文至此,亦不能不對台北地方法院的民事裁定表達一些看法。總的來說,這是一個見樹不見林的裁定,也是一個豈有此「理」的裁定。此處所稱之「理」,是指「憲政法理」。

一、不分區立委是政黨為了向社會負政治責任的政治任命,即如近日台聯僅以「違背黨的決策」便撤銷了林世嘉的黨籍及不分區立委資格,這本就是一個政黨的政治決策。如果政黨無此權力,如何使其不分區立委對黨負責?而黨又如何向社會負責?法院豈能干涉已完成黨內程序的黨紀處分案?法官難道是太上黨主席?

二、總統兼任黨主席,以總統身分不接受立法院長關說司法,又以黨主席立場訴諸黨紀,這在憲政法理上應視為一體的事件。法院的裁定,不啻使總統不能對憲政正義及政治風氣提出主張,並為合法正當之處置,則教總統如何治理國家?又如何負起政治責任?難道法官是太上總統?

三、明知王金平不是一般立法委員,而是立法院長;卻只顧全王個人的「民事利益」,使繫訟的立法院長繼續行使職權,未能迴避,甚至拒收中選會函文;試問,一旦王若敗訴,他「非法」主持議事的「憲政損害」當如何補救?此種見樹不見林的裁定,豈符比例原則?

此事若發生在一般公司,亦應考酌當事人應否停權或迴避,何況是立法院長?台北地院的裁定,不啻亦是以王金平二十%的個人利益,而將八十%的憲政利害置於莫大的風險之下。

近日我們一再主張,立法院長涉及司法關說即無留任的正當性。即使王金平在法院勝訴,即使民意傾向同情王金平,也不致改變我們的此一立場。我們或許無力改變這個「八十/二十」的局面,但我們仍要說:我們在理智及良知上,不能同意。

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Support for Wang becomes Opposition to Ma: Long Live DPP Opportunism

Support for Wang becomes Opposition to Ma:
Long Live DPP Opportunism
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 16, 2013


Summary: The Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal has morphed into a political power struggle. From any perspective, this is an unmitigated disaster for Taiwan. It is a sad day for Ma and Wang as well as for the general public. The only party experiencing a sense of "Schadenfreude," is the DPP. Su Tseng-chang seized the opportunity to demand the impeachment of President Ma. The "star" of the influence peddling scandal, Ker Chien-ming, puffed up his chest with an air of self-righteousness and demanded an apology from President Ma, urging him to "engage in self-introspection."

Full text below:

The Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal has morphed into a political power struggle. From any perspective, this is an unmitigated disaster for Taiwan. It is a sad day for Ma and Wang as well as for the general public. The only party experiencing a sense of "Schadenfreude," is the DPP. Su Tseng-chang seized the opportunity to demand the impeachment of President Ma. The "star" of the influence peddling scandal, Ker Chien-ming, puffed up his chest with an air of self-righteousness and demanded an apology from President Ma, urging him to "engage in self-introspection."

As the matter now stands, will the influence peddling scandal be totally forgotten? Will President Ma and the Special Investigation Unit continue to be demonized? Will those guilty of influence peddling continue to thumb their noses at justice and carry on with their crimes? Partisan politics in the legislature has been hijacked by a new, perverse manifestation of "bi-partisan cooperation." What sort of cesspool will Taiwan's politics become? When good and evil have been inverted so perversely, can society still discern right from wrong?

The DPP exploited the recent scandal. It sat on the sidelines, inciting conflict, making phony demands for constitutional interpretations, launching a movement to bring down Ma. From beginning to end, it revealed its opportunistic colors. It refused to engage in any soul-searching whatsoever over DPP Party Whip Ker Chien-ming's influence peddling. This further underscored the fact that the only idol it worships is opportunism. The DPP once boasted that it "judged itself according to the most stringent ethical standards." This boast has been reduced to ashes. The DPP has renounced all sense of morality and shame. Yet it trumpets "due process" and "support for constitutional law." Can people still give its claims the slightest credence?

According to a poll conducted by this newspaper, 67% of the public believes the KMT Disciplinary Committee's punishment of Wang Jin-pyng was "too harsh." But 48% of those polled also believe the DPP must impose party disciplinary measures on Ker Chien-ming. Yet the DPP ignores this, and blanks it out of awareness. Yu Ying-lung spoke during the "DPP Eight Years in Office Symposium." He said Wang Jin-pyng should be "grateful for the misery" Chen Shui-bian suffered. It made the public on Taiwan deeply skeptical of the Special Investigation Unit. This enabled Wang Jin-pyng to escape punishment for his own influence peddling. This is certainly a bizarre interpretation of the value of "Ah-Bian's Suffering." The Chen family engaged in shameless corruption for six years. And the lesson the DPP learned is how to be more brazen in its criminality?

During the recent influence peddling scandal, the DPP vigorously supported Wang JIn-pyng. Its behavior was bizarre. More than a few people within the party dissented. Tainan County Chief Su Huan-chih was among the first to see that something was amiss. He said the DPP party leadership's insistence that the scandal was all about "illegal wiretapping" or "judicial intervention" made Su Tseng-chang "come across as Wang Jin-pyng's defense attorney." He felt the DPP leadership was over-emphasizing "political power struggle," and ignoring the law. Subsequently Green Camp legislator Tuan Yi-kang also warned the DPP. He said that as the largest opposition party, the DPP "must not become Wang Jin-pyng's Praetorian Guard." It must not allow itself to be overwhelmed by Schadenfreude and forget its own crisis. Instead, it must seek political support by upholding the rule of law and democracy. Unfortunately, these voices fell on deaf ears.

Why is the DPP supporting Wang? Is it because it supports Ker and considers supporting Wang part of a "package deal?" Is it gratitude to Wang for his many years of "looking after the DPP" in the Legislative Yuan? Or is it simply a convenient opportunity to demagogue "anti-Ma" sentiment? It is difficult to say, and not worth pursuing. Our concern is the DPP's opportunism. The DPP has long trumpeted its "ethics" and " legitimacy." Yet in order to pillory Ma, it tossed its purported values out the window. Ma Ying-jeou may be behind the curve on many issues. But at least he has demonstrated a sense of justice and determination. By contrast, the DPP made the strategic decision to put opportunism first and self-interest above all, inspiring nothing but contempt.

The DPP has left the public on Taiwan three unanswered questions. One. Suppose Wang Jin-pyng had been peddling influence on behalf of someone other than Ker Chien-ming? Say a Blue Camp legislator? Would the DPP still have spared no effort to support Wang, and accused the Special Investigation Unit of being Ma Ying-jeou's "Enforcers?" Two. Ma Ying-jeou used party disciplinary procedures to deprive Wang Jin-pyng of his position as a legislator, as well as his position as Speaker of the Legislature. Were his actions really inconsistent with the principle of proportionality? If they were, what about the DPP's opportunistic call to impeach President Ma? How consistent was that with the principle of proportionality? Three. During this campaign the DPP and Wang colluded to affirm that "Influence peddling is no crime!" Ker Chien-ming's influence peddling of course, need not be prosecuted either. Meanwhile, the Special Investigation Unit has been fatally demonized. The DPP can now trumpet this as its contribution to Taiwan's democracy and the rule of law.

The DPP went from supporting Wang to pulling down Ma. The DPP's perpetual opportunism has its roots in the party's lack of genuine belief in democracy. When the Blue and Green camps were fighting over the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan years ago, the DPP denounced Wang as "black gold," saying he was the very object of the "black gold investigation center's" investigation. Now however, "Black gold " has magically become its "ally, " and "influence peddling" has become "a value that must be upheld." This shows that the Democratic Progressive Party's sole desire is to "plunge Taiwan into chaos." In this regard, the DPP's crisis of faith is even worse than the KMT's.

The DPP has never known how to act as the "loyal opposition." It has never been loyal to the nation. It has never been loyal to the people. And the events of today show that it is not even loyal to its own professed values of democracy and progress.

挺王變反馬:民進黨的機會主義萬歲
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.16 02:08 am

關說案演成政爭,從任何角度看都是台灣的不幸,無論對馬王雙方或一般民眾都是引以為憾的事。唯一對此感到大喜過望的則是民進黨,蘇貞昌立即趁勢吹起「彈劾馬總統」的號角,關說案主角柯建銘更嗆聲要求馬總統道歉自省,一派正義凜然的姿態。

此事演變成今天的模樣,如果關說事件的是非全被遺忘,馬總統和特偵組被妖魔化,關說者繼續笑傲廟堂之上並伸手關說,而國會的政黨政治被一股嶄新的「跨界結合」挾持,我們難以想像台灣政治將變成什麼樣的一池渾水。當正邪的天平如此倒錯,社會又要如何追求正確的價值?

民進黨這次的角色扮演,從敲邊鼓、搧風點火、聲請釋憲、發動倒馬,一路展現它見縫插針的本色。尤其,對於大黨鞭柯建銘在關說案中的角色,民進黨自始至終毫無檢討,更暴露了它膜拜的只是「機會主義」之神,過去自詡「用最高道德標準檢驗自己」的高調已化為灰燼。試想,一個放棄「道德感」與「羞恥心」的民進黨,卻在那裡高喊「程序正義」與「捍衛憲政」,民眾能相信嗎?

根據本報民調,儘管有六成七的民眾認為國民黨對王金平的處分「太重」,但也有四成八的民眾認民進黨應該以「黨紀」處分柯建銘。然而,民進黨對此置若罔聞,也不以為意。游盈隆在「民進黨八年執政研討會」中還說,王金平應該「感謝」陳水扁所受的「苦難」,讓台灣社會對特偵組產生嚴重質疑,才能使王金平在關說案中沒事。如此離奇的「阿扁苦難說」,難道就是民進黨六年來浸淫扁家貪瀆的奇恥大辱,所練就的厚黑神功?

民進黨在關說案中極力「挺王」的脫軌表現,黨內也有少數人抱持不同看法。前台南縣長蘇煥智最早看出不妥,認為黨中央將關說案定調為「非法監聽」或「司法干預」,使得蘇貞昌看起來「像王金平的辯護律師」。他認為,黨中央過度定調「政治鬥爭」,將失卻法律的立場。其後,綠委段宜康也公開提醒,民進黨身為最大反對黨,「不可變成王金平的親衛隊」,更不能見獵心喜到忘了自身危機,而應在維護民主法治上尋取立足點。遺憾的是,這些聲音,全變成狗吠火車。

民進黨之所以全力「挺王」,究竟是因為「挺柯」而「愛烏及屋」,或者是為了感謝王金平多年來在立法院的「愛護」而「知恩圖報」,或者純粹是看中了其間可以操弄的「反馬」巧門,我們無從分斷,也不想細究。我們關切的是,一向無論如何狡辯也要把「道德」及「正當性」掛在嘴邊的民進黨,這次卻為了貪圖一個打馬機會,把它標榜的價值完全拋到九霄雲外。馬英九不識時務的鍘王,至少展現了端正風氣的決心;相形之下,民進黨投機至上、私利為先的策略選擇,只是讓人鄙夷。

事情發展至此,民進黨給台灣社會留下了三個巨大的疑問:第一,如果當初王金平代為關說的對象不是柯建銘,而是任何其他藍營立委,民進黨仍會選擇不遺餘力地挺王,並指控特偵組就是馬英九的「東廠」嗎?第二,如果馬英九用黨紀來剝奪王金平的立委及院長資格是不符比例原則,那麼,民進黨藉機對馬總統發動「彈劾」攻勢,又符合比例原則嗎?第三,經過此役,民進黨和王金平共同形塑的「關說無罪」標準已告確立,柯建銘的關說行為自然不必再予追究,被妖魔化的特偵組則如同點上死穴;那麼,民進黨可以宣稱這就是它對台灣民主與法治的貢獻嗎?

從「挺王」轉向「倒馬」挺進,民進黨這種機會主義萬歲的作風,其實源自於它內在民主信仰的虛空化。當年藍綠爭國會議長寶座時,民進黨將王金平指為「黑金」,說他就是「查黑中心」正在偵查的對象;如今時空丕變,「黑金」變成了「盟友」,「關說」變成了必須捍衛的價值。這也顯示,民進黨的反對黨立場,只剩下「唯恐台灣不亂」的心願。就此而言,民進黨的信仰危機,恐較國民黨有過之而無不及。

民進黨一向不懂如何扮演「忠誠的反對黨」,不知道如何向國家忠誠,向人民忠誠;今天看來,它連維持對自己民主進步信仰的忠誠都放棄了。

Friday, September 13, 2013

You Speak of Justice, He Speaks of Compassion

You Speak of Justice, He Speaks of Compassion
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 14, 2013


Summary: The Wang Jin-pyng scandal has becomee a case of "You speak of justice, he speaks of compassion." Wang Jin-pyng also refuses to admit to wrongdoing. He too has hijacked the political system and incited social divisions, all so he can evade criminal prosecution. Our society is so easily manipulated by blind sentimentality and political gamesmanship. Is this not sad? Is this not dangerous?

Full text below:

According to an opinion poll conducted by this newspaper, 67% of all respondents consider the revocation of Wang Jin-pyng's party membership too harsh. Nineteen percent consider it appropriate. One percent considers it too lenient. So far the public appears to be split into two camps. One camp speak of justice. The other speaks of compassion. This poll suggests that the majority of the public belong in the latter category.

Consider a past example. On March 12, 2002, President Chen Shui-bian visited former President Lee Teng-hui at Veterans General Hospital. Chen handed Lee Teng-hui a note with two names on it: Chen Kuo-tung, and Li Chung-jen. These two men were Lee Teng-hui's money launderers. Chen Shui-bian used this information, obtained during a criminal investigation, to blackmail Lee Teng-hui. Chen viewed information obtained during criminal investigations as bargaining chips to be used for political power plays and the blackmail of political rivals. He actually boasted that he "covered up 75 cases."

Now consider President Ma's handling of the Wang Jin-pyng scandal. Huang Shi-ming conducted an "administrative investigation," then reported the influence peddling scandal to Ma. His action skated on the edges of the law, but remained within the law. Ma could have responded in any number of ways. He could have contemplated the terrible political price he would have to pay, then simply covered up the scandal. He could have invited Wang Jin-pyng for talk, politely asked him to take a look at the Special Investigation Unit transcript of his phone conversations, then covered up the scandal. He could have done Wang Jin-pyng a favor, put Wang in his debt, then delivered Wang a stern warning. Instead, Ma chose to make the results of the administrative investigation public, then begin party disciplinary procedures.

The matter has provoked an uproar, precisely because Ma Ying-jeou did not cover it up. He decided not to cover it up. Consider the case from the basis of what is constitutionally proper. Wang Jin-pyng's influence peddling resulted in the loss of his official position. This was as it should be. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou had covered up the scandal because he feared the political backlash? Suppose he had exploited the opportunity to blackmail Wang Jin-pyng? The truth would eventually emerge. Ma Ying-jeou's reputation would then be irrevocably tarnished. The public would denounce him as weak, incompetent, hypocritical, devoid of any sense of right and wrong. A president and party chairman must abide by the law. A speaker of the legislature who peddles influence must resign. There is no alternative. Consider the alternative for a moment. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou had argued that a speaker of the legislature guilty of judicial influence peddling need not resign? Would the public not be outraged? Would they allow him to survive?

Most people feel that the revocation of Wang' party membership was too harsh a punishment, They feel that way because they do not understand how serious the offense of judicial influence peddling is. Recently cabinet officials have been exchanging horror stories about being pressured by legislators engaged in administrative influence peddling. Their accounts were chilling. But the legislators had plausible pretexts. They were "serving their constituents." They were "coordinating legislation." Should a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan be prosecuted for administrative influence peddling?" The answer may depend on whom one asks. But if a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan engages in judicial influence peddling, he has committed a serious constitutional violation affecting the separation of powers. There is simply no wriggle room here. The judiciary, like Caesar's wife, must be beyond reproach. Caesar may forgive his wife's infidelities. But constitutional rule cannot. It cannot  countenance a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan using budgets to coerce opposition parties into being a party to influence peddling.

Wang Jin-pyng has considerable public support. The incident occurred just when he was presiding over his daughter's marriage. On the surface, he has contributed much to the nation's governance. His image as a "Go To Person" has impressed many. The Ma administration's handling of the scandal has provoked much debate about the human side of the issue. The public has divided itself into two camps. One speaks of justice, the other speaks of compassion. This case pits justice against compassion. Reconciling the two extremes is difficult. In the Chen case, conflicts also arose between "corruption and justice" vs. "solidarity with Taiwan independence." These two extremes were also difficult to reconcile. Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly underscored the contribution Wang Jin-pyng made, along with his public and personal relationships. But the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan engaged in judicial influence peddling. Ma has no choice but to render judgment based on right and wrong. In the end, he must make clear that "I am the president. The buck stops here."

The lapses in due process in this case have been the subject of much criticism That is indeed something that must be considered. But party disciplinary procedures cannot be characterized as a "kangaroo court." What political party does not have party disciplinary procedures? The TSU recently revoked legislator Simon Lin's party membership. Nor can lawful surveillance be equated with a "White Terror." These are obvious distortions. One can try to change the subject. but one cannot change the facts. The fact is Wang Jin-pyng engaged in judicial influence pedding on behalf of Ker Chien-ming.

A Speaker of the Legislative Yuan who engages in influence pedding must step down. No lighter punishment is available. The next lightest punishment would be 1. a reprimand with retention of his party membership and his position as Speaker of the Legislative Yuan, or 2. temporary suspension of his party privileges but retention of his status as legislator. But constitutional rule and political practice preclude this alternative. To permit him to remain Speaker of the Legislative Yuan or even a legislator would leave a ticking time bomb in the Legislative Yuan. This is something that the "justice" vs. "compassion" dichotomy cannot reconcile.

Recall the manner in which the DPP dealt with Ker Chien-ming. That is the real reason the KMT felt compelled to deal with the scandal the way it did. The DPP was determined to cover up for Ker. Ker as a consequence, has become increasingly arrogant. Should the public tolerate, let alone approve of, a party that "cares only for solidarity, but not for right and wrong?"

Some people backed Chen Shui-bian because they "cared only for solidarity, but not for right and wrong." Chen Shui-bian as a consequence, felt no remorse. He felt no qualms about hijacking the political system, inciting social divisions, and inverting right and wrong. Now this familiar story is being reenacted. The Wang Jin-pyng scandal has becomee a case of "You speak of justice, he speaks of compassion." Wang Jin-pyng also refuses to admit to wrongdoing. He too has hijacked the political system and incited social divisions, all so he can evade criminal prosecution. Our society is so easily manipulated by blind sentimentality and political gamesmanship. Is this not sad? Is this not dangerous?

你說大是大非 他說無情無義
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.14 03:41 am

本報民意調查指出,有六七%受訪者認為撤銷王金平黨籍的處分過重,十九%認為剛好,一%認為過輕。本案發展至今,社會上似乎出現了一種「你說大是大非/他說無情無義」的認知分裂;此項民調顯示,民意以後者居多數。

先說一件往例。二○○二年三月十二日,陳水扁總統赴榮總探前總統李登輝病,其間陳水扁對李登輝出示一張字條,上書「陳國棟/李忠仁」兩個名字;原來此二人是李登輝洗錢的人頭,陳水扁欲藉這個司法偵查情資威脅挾持李登輝。此一場景顯示:陳水扁自檢調單位取得偵查情資,將之用為政治操作及政治勒索的籌碼,且曾自稱「壓住了七十五案」。

回過頭來看馬總統處理王金平案。黃世銘循「行政調查」的路徑向馬報告關說事件(此一路徑是「法規邊緣」,但未違法規);馬的回應或許有幾種選擇,他可因顧忌政潮的可怕代價就逕行「吃案」,或者找王金平來,請他看一看特偵組的監聽譯文,然後「吃案」,送王金平一個人情,也讓王心生畏憚。但是,馬英九的選擇是:一方面公布行政調查的案情,一方面訴諸黨紀。

此事鬧到今天的軒然大波,可說皆因馬英九沒有吃案而起。既未吃案,則就憲政正義而言,如今導致涉及司法關說的王金平去職,乃合乎比例的發展。反過來說,馬英九若因畏懼政潮或欲藉此挾持王金平而「吃案」,亦不免有被揭發的一天;屆時,莫說馬英九的歷史評價就此葬送,民間也必以懦弱、無能、鄉愿、沒有是非等辱罵加諸於他。因此,就一位護憲守法的總統及黨主席而言,主張關說司法的立法院長必須去職,應是他唯一的選擇。其實,不妨反過來想一想,馬英九若主張司法關說的立法院長不必去職,則在國人的正義理念下他難道會有活路可走?

民意認為撤銷黨籍的處罰過重,這是未必瞭解司法關說的嚴重。最近,內閣官員間不斷交換曾受立院高層「行政關說」的經驗,情節均駭人聽聞,但也均有「選民服務/法案協調」的灰色空間。因此,若是追究立法院長的「行政關說」,尚可見仁見智;但一位立法院長若進行司法關說,就犯了「侵害三權分立」的憲政天條,沒有迴旋的餘地。或謂司法是皇后的貞操,然而皇帝其實可以原諒皇后失貞;但在憲政正義上,絕無縱容包庇立法院長以預算案須反對黨配合而關說司法的道理。

王金平能獲強烈的社會同情,除事發時正值他主持女兒婚事,另一原因是他確在外觀上對國家政局頗有貢獻,且其「萬應公」的形象亦能感染人心;尤其,馬團隊處理本案時在人情觀點上引發諸多議論,遂使社會出現了「你說大是大非/他說無情無義」的認知分裂。然而,本案的「是非」與「情義」,卻是兩個極難兼顧的衝突元素;正如在扁案中,也出現「貪汙是非」與「台獨情義」的認知衝突難以兼顧。因而,馬英九雖亦再三強調王金平的貢獻與「公誼私交」,但是面對立法院長關說司法的是非判斷,卻畢竟要表明「我身為總統,無從迴避」。

本案的程序正義亦受極多批評,這些確都有待檢討。但黨紀處分被認為「私設刑堂」,試問哪一個政黨沒有黨紀機制?台聯不是剛撤銷了不分區立委林世嘉的黨籍?而「合法監聽」被指為「白色恐怖」,似乎亦有扭曲渲染之嫌。但是,不論如何轉移焦點,也不能改變王金平為柯建銘司法關說的事實。

立法院長涉及關說必須去職,是因無法取得其他較輕的處分。因為,較輕的處分就是申誡而維持黨籍及院長地位,或暫停黨權留任立委,但這些皆在憲政正義及政治實務上並無可採的餘地(留任院長或立委等於留下立院政潮火種),而這也正是「是非」與「情義」無法兼顧的困境。

其實,若能回過頭來看民進黨如何處理柯建銘的方法,即知國民黨的處置實為理所必然。民進黨如今全黨迴護柯,且柯的氣焰亦愈來愈囂張,難道社會應當容忍這種「只有情義/全無是非」的政黨?

社會上有些人曾「只有情義/全無是非」地挺扁,而陳水扁亦全無悔悟,不惜以挾持政局、撕裂社會來顛倒是非。如今似曾相識的場景彷彿又現,社會上對王金平案又陷入「你說大是大非/他說無情無義」的認知分裂;而王金平也不認錯,亦以挾持政局、撕裂社會的手法欲扭轉情勢。如此理盲濫情且極易被政客操弄的社會,寧不悲哀?豈不危險?